mardi 19 octobre 2010

Simulacre de procès et torture à Nuremberg




Des militaires américains très respectés de la Seconde Guerre mondiale ont sévèrement condamné le procès de Nuremberg et l'ont qualifié de ''parodie de justice''.


Major General Ulysses S. Grant III:
"I do feel that the trial of officers and even civilian officials was the most unfortunate and unjustified violation of international law. I'm afraid our administration allowed itself to be led on by the Soviet desire for vengence and I'm sure we will both have cause to regret our participation, both because it was inconsistent with our previous more generous and more gentlemanly attitude, and because it gave a precedent for the victor to revenge himself on individuals after any future war. Such action in violation of international law and purely to vent one's anger on individuals acting under orders is sure to come back and plague us in the future".


Admiral Felix Slump, commander in chief of US Pacific Fleet, commander Airforce Atlantic Fleet:
"The war crimes trials held in the heat of hatred fresh in the minds of judges could not have been fair and impartial and therefore should not have been held at all. No military officiers carrying out orders of their government had any discretion and in no case should have been punished. Actual crimes should have been handled out by their own government and not by enemy governments."


Admiral Thomas C. Kinkade:
"The Nuremberg trials conducted by a so-called international military court - which it was not - were a travesty of legality and violated the basic principles of justice, which have been a treasured part of our heritage. They constituted a libel on the military profession. They robbed us of a moral victory and prestige which after a long and costly war should have been ours."


General A.C. Wedermeyer (1944), commander of US forces in China
"It was always my conviction that you and many of your comrades that were punished at the war crimes trial at Nuremberg had only carried out your orders as professional military men and in the process that you had not committed offenses contrary or repugnant to international law or decency and human relation"

Lt. Gen. Pedro del Valle, us marine corp, commanding general, first marine division (WWII)
"talks of the travesty of justice known as the Nuremberg trials, I feel certainly the vast majority of us were violently opposed to the proceeding, but were obliged to look on helplessly while honorable men who follow the honorable profession of arms in defense of their country just as we did were tried and found guilty of crimes that did not exist by a prejucided court composed of their enemies under a code which no civilised country recognizes. We who fough honorably salute you, Admiral Doenitz."


Vice Amiral A. Stanton Merrill, commander cruiser division 12, Navy, WWII:
"I consider the war crimes trials in general and the trial of Admiral Doenitz in particular a matter of mass hypocrisy resulting from a war-bred hangover. True, politicans were responsible, but I recall few protests from the man in the street at the time. The military, who had a greater license to be angry, were opposed to it at the time, especially the "professional" sailors and soldiers!"




Extrait de WITNESS TO HISTORY, par Michael Walsh

CHAPTER 24

THE NUREMBERG 'TRIALS'

Quote:
".. a libel on the military profession." - Vice Admiral Hewlett Thebaud, USN

"... a fantastic desecration of the ideals of Western Civilisation, and appalling miscarriage of justice... a misuse of evidence for vicious ends, all of which will someday be exposed as a shocking travesty of high legal and moral principles." - Henry M. Adams, Ph.D. Professor of History, University of California

JUSTICE ON TRIAL

The International Tribunal at Nuremberg, set up to pass judgement on the vanquished nations, was neither international nor legal in any accepted sense of these terms.

Most of these 'trials' were arranged independently of other victor nations; Great Britain, France, the United States and the Soviet Union along with dictatorships created by the allies, Participation by neutral states or observers was neither invited nor welcomed. Mostly, they were 'military tribunals' such as the American Military Tribunal' which ran 'trials' at Dachau.

The British government set up its own trials, independently of other victor nations so it is difficult to imagine why or how such charades could ever be described as being international in nature. The U.S Supreme Court on December, 20th, 1948, washed its hands of U.S Government responsibility when it stated: "We are satisfied that the Tribunal sentencing these prisoners is not a tribunal of the United States."

"Then why, one might ask, were U.S. citizens and government officials serving as prosecutors and judges, and why has the U.S. Government participated in and endorsed an alien tribunal which does not accord to defendants the same rights which American defendants would receive before U.S. courts at home?" - H.K Thompson and Henry Strutz,M.A. Doenitz at Nuremberg: A re-Appraisal. N.Y., 1976

"The Nuremberg process in itself was not a judicial process, but an act of vengeance against the defeated. Nuremberg was particularly profaned by the fact that the Russians were among the judges and themselves guilty of many crimes and atrocities . . . Being a jurist myself, and a Christian, I abhor the justice of Nuremberg." - Most Reverend. Bishop Vincentas Brizgys, Bishop of Lithuania

"I think the world expected us to give proof of American legal principles and judicial practice by using them when dealing with our defeated enemies. Instead of this, Gestapo and MVD methods were used.

"I have heard evidence and read documentary proofs to the effect that the accused persons were beaten up, maltreated and physically tortured by methods which could only be conceived by sick brains. They were subjected to mock trials and pretended executions, they were told that their families would be deprived of their ration cards. All these things were carried out with the approval of the Public Prosecutor to secure the psychological atmosphere necessary for the extortion of the required confessions. If the United States lets such acts committed by a few people go unpunished, then the whole world can rightly criticize us severely and forever doubt the correctness of our motives and our moral integrity." - Senator McCarthy, American Press, May 20th 1949

At the Dachau U.S Military Tribunals, interrogators poised as priests to extract confessions. The American judge, Edward L. Van Roden, one of the three members of an American Army Commission set up to investigate claims of maltreatment found:

"Posturing as priests to hear confessions and give absolution; torture with burning matches driven under the prisoners' fingernails; knocking out of teeth and breaking jaws; solitary confinement and near-starvation rations. The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four, and five months . . .

"the investigators would put a black hood over the head of the accused and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses . . .

"all but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was standard operation procedure with our American investigators."

"Low rank prisoners were assured that convictions were being sought only against higher ranking officers, and they had absolutely nothing to lose by co-operating and making the desired statements. Such 'evidence' was then used against them - when they joined their superiors in the dock. The latter were told on the other hand that by 'confession', they would take all responsibility onto their own shoulders, thus shielding their men from trial."

"A favorite stratagem, when a prisoner refused to co-operate, was to arrange a mock trial. In these, death sentences were passed, then offers of a 'reprieve' if he confessed. Sometimes a prisoner would be threatened with being handed over to the Russians, his family deprived of their ration cards - or worse."

Colonel A.H Rosenfeld upon whose rulings the admissibility was final, when asked about these sham trials replied:

"Yes, of course. We couldn't have made these birds talk otherwise. . . it was a trick and it worked like a charm."

"Hearsay evidence was admitted indiscriminately and sworn statements of witnesses were admissible regardless of whether anybody knew the person who made the statement or the individual who took the statement." - George McDonough, American Lawyer, New York Times

The circus aspect of these show trials was such that when a certain gentleman of the name Einstein tearfully accused a German named Menzel of murdering his brother, the defendant pointed out that his brother was alive and well, and sitting in the court. The presiding investigator scolded Einstein.

"How can we bring this pig to the gallows if you are so stupid as to bring your brother into court?"

Hardly surprising therefore that the highest ranking military commanders, predominantly but not exclusively from the allied side, condemned the Nuremberg Trials as a judicial farce and a disgrace to civilized behavior. Their condemnation was echoed by thousands of eminent statesmen, jurists, intellectuals, writers, journalists, ecclesiastics and educators.

In 1956, H.K Thompson, Jr, a Yale graduate in naval science and history with a background in military and maritime law came together with Henry Strutz, M.A, a linguist, university teacher and associate member of the U.S. Naval Institute. They marked the release of Grand Admiral Doenitz by beginning a project of contemporary and informed opinion on the validity or otherwise of the Nuremberg Trials.

The book, Doenitz at Nuremberg: A Re-Appraisal, Amber Publishing Group, NYC. 1976, was hailed as 'the most important work on the Nuremberg 'War Crimes Trials' to appear in 25 years.'

Over a period of twenty years, they invited, read and evaluated many thousands of letters, briefs and manuscripts offering comment on the trials. Those supporting the trials made up an insignificant minority and fell into three categories.

(1) A hard core who still maintained the legality of the trials, of which it was interesting to note that most had played a part in them.

(2) Those who whilst admitting their illegal status felt that they were politically necessary, and

(3) those who felt that the trials whilst unique were set to establish legal precedents to limit future wars, on the presumption that application would be applied equally, which of course it has not.

The compilers of Doenitz at Nuremberg: A Re-Appraisal saw no reason to unnecessarily duplicate the many thousands of informed comment critical of the Nuremberg Trials. These in essence were repetitive. They preferred instead to provide a cross sampling of views whilst depositing the entire results of their research with the H.K Thompson Collection at Hoover Library on War, Revolution and Peace, Stamford University.

THE WAR CRIMES 'TRIALS' ON TRIAL

"The Nuremberg Trials have made the waging of an unsuccessful war a crime; the generals on the defeated side were tried and then hanged." - Field Marshal Bernard L. Montgomery. June 9th 1948

"The truth of the matter is that no one of the victors was free of the guilt which its judges attributed to the vanquished." - The Chicago Tribune, October 2nd 1946

"In my judgement, the procedure by which the Nuremberg Tribunal was created and the criminals trials thereunder conducted, was completely fraught with illegality." - William L. Hart, The Supreme Court of Ohio

"This kangaroo court at Nuremberg was officially known as the 'International Military Tribunal.' That name is a libel on the military profession. Nuremberg was, in fact, a lawyers' tribunal, although I can readily understand why the legal profession is ashamed to claim it, and deliberately stuck a false label on it.

"I am glad our real military men had nothing to do with the travesty on justice that the lawyers and 'statesmen' conducted on Nuremberg." - Rear Admiral Dan V. Gallery. U.S.N. (Ret.)

PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

Quote:
In his book, Profiles in Courage, President John F. Kennedy praised Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio, for having the courage to publicly denounce the Nuremberg Trials and reveal them to have been held in, "a spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. In these trials we have accepted the Russian idea of the purpose of trials - government policy and not justice - with little relation to Anglo-Saxon heritage."

"A step backward in international law." - Honorable Justice, Learned Hand

"A travesty of justice." - Admiral Harry E. Yarnell, U.S.N Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Asiatic Fleet

"...wholly unjustified and a disgrace to the national governments sanctioning it." - Rear Admiral Reginald R. Belknap, U.S.N. Atlantic Fleet

"Not in accordance with justice." - Hon. William Cosgrave, LL.D, President, Dail Eireann, 1922

"I could never accept the Nuremberg Trials as representing a fair and just procedure." - Dr. Igor I. Sikorsky, Aircraft Designer

"What we did in this case was to resort to private vengeance. Admiral Doenitz and other leaders who were imprisoned should be recompensed for their treatment." - - Dr. John L. Gillin, Emeritus Professor of Criminology, University of Wisconsin

"I have been boiling mad for years over the 'war crimes trials which I think were despicable and contemptible, and smack more of ancient Rome's barbarism than of a so-called civilized country. Not only were the 'war crimes trials' one of the blackest spots on our recent black (and Red) history, but the bombing of the only two Christian cities in Japan in August, 1945, via the atomic bomb calls to high heaven for retribution." - Taylor Caldwell, American novelist

To Grand Admiral Doenitz:

"I have always felt, and still feel that you were treated unfairly.... your conviction by the Nuremberg Military Tribunal was a miscarriage of justice." - U.S. Senator William Langer

"A monstrosity and a nameless injustice." - Admiral Thomas Pizarro, Peruvian Navy

"The Nuremberg Trials were contrary to legal precepts." - - Alfonso of Bourbon and Orleans, Infante of Spain; Great-grandson of Queen Victoria

"It is not right to bring to trial officers or men who have acted under orders from higher authority.... the most brutal act of the war was the dropping of the Atom Bombs on Japan... the allies were far from guiltless and should have taken that into fuller consideration." - Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Chatfield, P.C., G.C.B, Commander-in-Chief, British Atlantic Fleet

"I regard the Nuremberg 'war crimes trials' as one of the worst reflections upon enlightened leadership in world affairs as ever has been known. The trials really were a disgrace upon all who participated therein." - Hon. Michael Francis Doyle, LL.D, International lawyer, Papal Chamberlain

"A most unfortunate and unjustified violation of international law." - Major-General Ulysses S. Grant, 111, U.S.A.

"The idea of trying the leaders of defeated nations as 'war criminals' is but a first step toward the dark ages." - Vice Admiral John F. Shafroth, U.S.N., Commander South Pacific Area

"It is my considered opinion that the Nuremberg Trials violated the reputation for justice so long held by the British and American peoples, and that many of the findings contravened our most sacred constitutional principles." - - Air Vice-Marshal Hugh Champion de Crespigny, R.A.F., C.B., M.C., D.F.C.

"The Nuremberg Trials were a tragic mistake. They will haunt us always." - Major General James E. Chaney, USAF

".. a libel on the military profession." - Vice Admiral Hewlett Thebaud, USN

"The Nuremberg Trials have created a deplorable precedent in international law." - Dr. Samuel T. Chambers, Professor of History, University of Baltimore

"... a vindictive travesty of every canon of old military law." - Dr. Francis Neilson, Author and historian

"Aside from the horrendous demand for 'Unconditional Surrender,' certainly the most stupid error of America's World War Two policies was to sponsor and participate in the so-called Nuremberg Trials." - Honorable Howard Buffett. Lawyer, U.S Congress

"My attitude towards the War Crimes Trials is epitomized in a terse reply by Colonel McCormick (Chicago Tribune): 'I will never lend my presence where legalized murder is imposed." - Major General Charles L. Mullins, Jnr. USA

"They (The Nuremberg Trials) set a very dangerous precedent." - Honourable Frank A.W Lucas, Judge of Appeal, High Commission Territories, Union of South Africa

"I believe the trials in general were a travesty of justice." - Honourable Joseph H. Ball, U.S. Senator, Minnesota

"The dangerous precedent set at Nuremberg must be removed." - Rear Admiral Nils Wijkmark, Royal Swedish Navy

"... a great shame, the direct responsibility for which rests upon the legal fraternity of Great Britain and the United States." - O. Glenn Saxon, LL.B., AM. Professor of Economics, Yale University

"A barefaced hypocrisy." - Major General William Church Davis. USA

"... one should consider with disgust and sorrow this (Nuremberg Trials) and similar deeds which are dishonourable not only for the winners but also for the developments of the morals of humanity." - Lieutenant General Fahri Belen, Turkish Army

"Unjust and completely outrageous." (The conviction and imprisonment of Admiral Doenitz) - Honourable George H. Earle, LL.D, D.C.L

"Unwarranted, unjust and illegal." - Major General George L. Eberle, USA

"Unjust ands a reflection on the United States." - Brigadier General Robert E. Wood, USA

"What's the difference between Nuremberg and chaining the captured vanquished to the chariot of the victor to be dragged around an arena to the plaudits of the victor's henchmen?" - Hon. George Bell Timmerman, LL.D. American jurist.

"... could not have been fair and impartial and therefore should not have been held at all." - Admiral Felix B. Stump, U.S.N

"A disgrace upon America and should never have taken place." - J.H Gipson, Sr. President, The Caxton Printers Ltd, Economist and author

"Our government has set a precedent that can come back to plague it." - William R. Mathews. Editor, Arizona Daily Star

"I can well remember, at the time of the Nuremberg Trials, my great uneasiness about the justice of placing senior, or indeed any officers, on trial for carrying out orders from higher authority." - Vice Admiral Cyril St. Clair Cameron, Royal Navy, C.B.E

"A grave mistake and illegal." - Major General Harry H. Vaughan, U.S. Army Reserve

".. one of the greatest, most unjust crimes ever committed by so-called civilised people. Undoubtedly military leaders of the so-called allies, were just as guilty of the charges made against those who were tried." - Hon. J. Bracken Lee, Governor, State of Utah

"I consider that the trials have done an immeasurable amount of harm." - - General Richard J. Mulcahy of Ireland; Minister of Defence

"I applaud and endorse this effort to call attention to the injustice of the Nuremberg 'war crimes trials and to the dangerous precedent set by them." - Hon. Henry P. Fletcher, LL.D. U.S. Under Secretary of State

"In my opinion, the trials of professional military men as for instance the Nuremberg Trials remind of the barbarian days when prisoners-of-war were killed just because they had fought." - General Hendrik J, Kruls, Royal Netherlands Army

"Our country could never live down its participation in such a shameful travesty of justice." - Major General John Shirley Wood, USA

"... the result of hysteria on the part of those responsible." - Vice Admiral Glenn B. Davis, U.S.N

"I would like to say that I regard the 'war crimes trials' as a crime." - Rev. Dr. John H. Holmes, D.D. (Jewish Institute of Religion), Director, American Civil Liberties Union

"I am of the opinion that the war crimes trials were illegal." Hon. W. Dahanayake, Prime Minister of Ceylon

"This reminds us of the Dark Ages and proves that the spiritual development of our World lags far behind the miraculous materialistic progress." - Honourable Najeeb-Al-Armanazi, LL.D. Secretary General, Presidency of the Republic of Syria

"... a great miscarriage of justice." - Vice Admiral Frederick M. Trapnell, U.S.N

"I have always felt that the 'War Crimes Trials' were the brain child of Stalin and sold to the U.S. and Britain." - Commodore Carlos Augustus Bailey, U.S.N

"There was no authorization or precedent in International Law for those trials and I consider the precedent set at that time to be most dangerous and an international disgrace." - Rear Admiral James D. Barner, U.S.N

"... a fantastic desecration of the ideals of Western Civilisation, and appalling miscarriage of justice... a misuse of evidence for vicious ends, all of which will someday be exposed as a shocking travesty of high legal and moral principles." - - Henry M. Adams, Ph.D, Professor of History, University of California

"The Nuremberg process in itself was not a judicial process, but an act of vengeance against the defeated. Nuremberg was particularly profaned by the fact that the Russians were among the judges and themselves guilty of crimes and atrocities... Being a jurist myself, and a Christian, I abhor the justice of Nuremberg." - Most Rev. Bishop Vincentas of Lithuania

"The 'Military Tribunals' constituted by the allies to judge the military and civilian authorities of the vanquished country have no legal basis whatsoever." - Edison Diaz Salvo, General of Aviation of the Republic of Chile

"I was and am against the War Crimes Trials in principle. .... a dangerous precedent which will someday back-fire." - Major General Orlando Ward, USA

"A serious mistake." - Major General Paul W. Baade, USA

"I believe that no sane person can approve what was done by the Nuremberg Tribunal, where all the norms of civilisation were violated." - - Admiral Don Francisco Bastarreche, Admiral of the Spanish Fleet

"... the majority of these trials, as being illegal and travestic of justice, ... I regret my country had anything to do with it." - Vice Admiral Walter S. Anderson, U.S.N

"For all such, forgive us. We were wrong." - Admiral John W. Reeves, Jr., U.S.N

"A travesty of legality and violated the basic principles of justice which have been a treasured part of our heritage." - Admiral Thomas C. Kinkaid, U.S.N. Commander, Allied Forces, S.W Pacific

"To me the Nuremberg Trials have always been totally inexcusable and a horrible travesty of justice." - Rear Admiral Robert A. Theobald, U.S.N. Commander, North Pacific Force

"I consider the War Trials as one of the most disgraceful manifestations of the post war hysteria." - Vice Admiral Richard H. Cruzen, U.S.N, Commander, Naval Forces, Philippines, 1951

"I feel very strongly on the basic principles involved in 'war crimes trials' and the flagrant travesty on justice resulting from such hypocrisy." - Rear Admiral James E. Arnold, U.S.N.R

"Of course the action against you was grossly unjust; and it is a sorry blot on my country's history. . . I'll only express one bit of satisfaction; - Despite some titles and uniforms worn by my own countrymen in the Nuremberg affair, none of them were really Military or Naval men . . . may I salute you." - Admiral Thomas C. Hart, U.S.N, Commander-in-Chief, Asiatic Fleet, World War 11

"The war crimes trials was a reversion to the ancient practice of the savage extermination of a defeated enemy and particularly its leaders." - Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, U.S.N Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Fleet

"To bring them to trial under post facto law, concocted to convict them, is a piece of hideous hypocrisy and humbug." - Major General J.F.C Fuller, C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O. British military historian and author

"The war trials were a low level to which farce was connected." - Hon. Henry W. Shoemaker, Litt.D. Colonel Military Intelligence. U.S.A.R

"an illegal procedure and a 'barefaced hypocrisy'. I felt that way at the time of the trials and so stated." - Hon Burton K. Wheeler, U.S. Senator, Candidate for vice-presidency of United States

" ..... your recent release (Admiral Karl Doenitz) evoke in me the feeling of shame for my country which I felt during the travesty on justice known as the Nuremberg Trials." - Lieutenant General Pedro A. del Valle, U.S.M.C, Commanding General, 1st Marine Division, World War 11

"... The criminal trials of military leaders in Germany at the close of World war 11 were not in accordance with international law nor supported by legal authorisation of any civilised country." - Hon. Usher L. Burdick. Member of Congress

"...unjust and fundamentally wrong in principle." - Hon. Spruille Braden, U.S Assistant Secretary of State

"I have always regarded the Nuremberg Trials as a travesty upon justice and the farce was made even more noisome with Russia participating as one of the judges." - Charles Callan Tansill, Ph.D. Professor of History

"A political stunt." - Field Marshall Lord Henry Maitland Wilson of Libya. Commander-in-Chief, Middle East, 1941

"A libel on the military profession and barefaced hypocrisy." - Vice Admiral Ralph Edward Jennings, U.S.N

"The war crimes trials were an abomination and will plague our people for centuries." - Brigadier General Bonner Fellers, USA, Planning Group, O.S.S World War 11

"I have been greatly shocked and disturbed by this international action." - Honourable William Phillips, U.S. Under Secretary of State

"I have a very long record of opposition to the holding of these trials." - The Rt. Hon.Lord Hankey, P.C., G.C.B., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O.., LL.D. Minister in War Cabinet, World War 11

"I was from the beginning very unhappy about the Nuremberg Trials . . . the weak points of such trials are obvious." - T.S Eliot. English poet and author

"I have neither read nor followed the testimony concerned in the so-called 'War Crimes Trials' at Nuremberg because the entire procedure, in my opinion, became a nauseating farce through the participation of the Soviet 'judges'. The presence of these minions of a barbarous and mediaeval autocracy elevated this disgraceful episode to the stratosphere of hypocrisy." - Hon. James H.R Cromwell. U.S. Minister to Canada, 1940

"The precedent of the infamous Nuremberg trials constitutes an unparalleled blunder." - Admiral Alexander E. Sakellariou, Royal Hellenic Navy, Commander-in-Chief, Greek Naval Forces

"... was a lapse from present-day standards of civilisation and justice to the Dark Ages. Let us fervently hope that we have seen the last of such action." - Vice Admiral Everett C. Morsell, S.C., U.S.N

"I apologize to Admiral Doenitz and the German people for what, done then in our name without our approval or consent, has resulted in such injury to everybody involved." - Professor Dr. Herbert C. Sanborn. Historian and author

"I am wholly in agreement as to the hypocrisy and illegality of the Nuremberg Trials. The Nuremberg Trials set a dangerous precedent and must be exposed...." - Air Commodore G.S. Oddie, D.F.C., A.F.C. Deputy Director R.A.F, World War II

"The Nuremberg Trials were a disgrace to civilisation, and, as a teacher of young men and women, I have deeply regretted that my country joined in this outrageous action." Kenneth Colegrove, Ph.D. Consultant to General Douglas MacArthur

"There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that these trials were 'a libel on the military profession.' I am sorry." - Vice Admiral Mahlon S. Tisdale, U.S.N. Commander, Destroyers, Pacific Fleet, World War 11

"An outrage against good morals, an absurdity in point of international law, and a deplorable error in policy. They set a precedent for what amounts to the legalised lynching of the leaders of the defeated side in any future war." - Hoffman Nickerson, American author

"I have no doubt that the Nuremberg 'War Crimes Trials' were an instrument of revenge rather than of justice. As an American citizen, I apologise to Admiral Doenitz." - Colonel Ulius L. Amoss, U.S.A.F. Deputy Chief of Staff, 9th Air Force, World War II

"I consider the 'war crimes trials' in general and the trial of Admiral Doenitz in particular, a matter of mass hypocrisy resulting from a war-bred hangover." - Vice Admiral A. Stanton Merrill, U.S.N Commander, Cruiser Division

"... they were most unjust and cruel." - Admiral of the Fleet, The Rt. Hon. 12th Earl of Cork and Orrery, G.C.B. Commander-in-Chief, Home Fleet and Portsmouth.

"The Nuremberg Charter under which Doenitz was tried created alleged crimes for which there is no precedent or justification in international law or usage." - Vice Admiral Kenneth G.B Dewar, C.B.E. Commanded H.M.S. Royal Oak and Tiger

"But the real guilty ones are the British Admiralty, the French Department of the Marine, and the Navy Departments of all countries, including our own. They are the guilty ones, not the officers who obeyed their orders." - Commodore Julius F. Hellweg, U.S.N

"It does not seem fair to me." - General Sir Andrew Thorne, K.C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O. Commander-in-Chief, Allied Land Forces

"They smell. I have always considered them as legalistic hocus-pocus to give semblance of respectability to barbarous vengeance inflicted upon opponents who have merely done their duty on the losing side of a war. A primitive idea supposed to be in disrepute for some centuries." - Rear Admiral George van Deurs, U.S.N. World War 11

"... had the same legal status as a Kangaroo Court.... The 'War Crimes Trials' can only be justified by Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist and New Dealist doctrines." - - Rear Admiral Henry C. Flanagan, U.S.N. Commander, Transport Divisions, Pacific

"....largely for propaganda purposes and unwise." - Major General William W.P Gibsone, C.M.G., D.S.O., O.B.E., Royal Canadian Army

"Many of us felt that the actions taken were autocratic and had no place in a democracy." - Vice Admiral Edward W. Hanson, U.S.N

"... regrettable and attributable to mass hysteria.." - Rear Admiral George W. Bauernschmidt, S.C., U.S.N

"... contrary to civilised ideals and principles of legal justice. This country owes to Grand Admiral Doenitz and to many other men at the least a humble apology for what we have caused them to suffer. Let us hope that we have learned from these tragic mistakes a lesson we shall never forget, and that never again shall we repeat such conduct." - Honourable Edward Leroy Van Roden, President Judge

Note: The Honourable Edward Leroy Van Roden, President Judge, served as a member of the Commission set up to investigate the cases of German officers and soldiers tried by the American Military Courts at Dachau. He later testified as to the methods of interrogation used which included legal farce, illegal, unfair and cruel (torture) methods and duress to secure confessions of guilt.

"I am glad to join other American citizens in condemning such procedures as those established." - Hon. Hugh G. Grant, American Diplomat

"I think those (Nuremberg) trials were the greatest mistake our government could have made and predict that the precedent set will haunt this country for hundreds of years." - Major General Howard C. Davidson. U.S.A.F World War 11

"The infamous 'war crimes trials' will undoubtedly cause the future inhabitants of this cockeyed planet to blush with embarrassment." - Robert LeFevre, American educator and author

"... is manifestly an injustice." - Admiral Harold R. Stark. U.S.N. Chief of Naval Operations, 1939-42

"I attended the Nuremberg Trials for several days as a guest of one of the legal profession. One cannot help getting the impression that the law was fabricated." - General Sir Henry Charles Loyd, K.C.B., C.B., K.C.V.O., D.S.O., M.C. Commander-in-Chief, Southern Command

"The trials were not based on justice, precedent or international law. They have set a vicious precedent." - Admiral Laurence T. DuBose, U.S.N. Commander, Cruiser Division. World war II

"I was asked if I would sit on the Court which was assembled to try Field Marshall von Manstein about 1948, but refused because I felt that the whole principle of these war crimes trials was wrong.

"In fact, it seems to me that the basis of the majority of the war crimes trials were not founded on true democratic justice, but on revengeful desire to punish a number of military commanders for all the sin and misery and suffering, inseparable from war." - General Sir Frank W. Messervy, K.C.S.I., K.B.E., C.B., D.S.O. Commander-in-Chief, Malaya Command

"... in the past, conquerors sometimes executed their opponents, but I never head of any attempt to legalise it." - Admiral Samuel M. Robinson, Jnr, U.S.N

"An ugly miscarriage of justice... only hate and war hysteria could have permitted such a weird concept of war crime." - Rear Admiral Arthur T. Moen, U.S.N

"... should not be liable to such trials." - Major General Sir William L.O. Twiss, K.C.I.E., C.B., C.B.E., M.C., F.R.G.S. General Officer Commanding British Army in Burma

"Such acts as the Nuremberg Trials of gallant opponents do not auger well for peace in future. They are merely boding more evil, and more severity for the leading victims after a war, and lower the prestige of the victors." - Lady Evelyn Margaret Chetwynd

"The trial of German alleged war criminals, citizens of a defeated country, conducted by judges of a victorious enemy country was in itself a gross infringement of the elementary principles of justice and equity." - Hon. Luigi Villari, Grand Officer of the Crown of Italy

"It had no authorisation or precedent in international law, which has no punitive provisions." - Admiral Charles P. Snyder, U.S.N. Commander, Battleships, Pacific Fleet. 1939

"... the 'war crimes trials' were a disgrace to our American tradition, and equally as bad, they created a precedent which can only mean liquidation of the entire brains of the United States should Communists prevail in this country." - Devin E. Garrity, President, Devin-Adair Company. Publishers

"As far as the 6th Armored Division was concerned in its 280 days in front line contact, there was no atrocity problem. Frankly, I was aghast, as were many of my contemporaries, when we learned of the proposed 'war crimes trials and the fact that military commanders were among the accused.

"I firmly believe that the 'war crimes trials' were ill-conceived, vindictively executed, and served only to lower the dignity and prestige of America." - Major General Robert W. Grow, USA. Commander, 6th Armored Division in Europe. World War II

"I have always looked upon the 'war crimes trials' as an unlawful revengeful act rather than a court of justice." - Admiral John E. Gingrich, U.S.N

"I consider the trial of German officials after World War 11 was outrageous and cannot be condoned." - Major General James Kelly Parsons, USA. Commanding General 3rd Corps

"The trial and condemnation of Admiral Doenitz was an insult to both British and American submariners." - Captain Bernard Acworth, Royal Navy, D.S.O

"It was my opinion at the time of the Nuremberg Trials, and still is, that the officers concerned were not treated in a way corresponding to the principles of justice and democracy." - Vice Admiral Thore Horve, Royal Norwegian Navy. C.B.E., D.S.C

".... a precedent which should not be followed among what are commonly described as civilized nations." - Dr. George Peabody Gooch, C.H. British historian and author

"My view is that the law must be applied to all. Had this been applied at the time of these trials, there would have been a number of ranking officers among the victors who stood trial. I hope you succeed in destroying the dangerous precedent set." - Major General Frederick F. Worthington, C.B., M.C., M.M., C.D. General Officer Commanding, Armored Division, 1942

".... this whole procedure was a result of mass hysteria and conducted in spirit of mob violence." - Major General Thomas O. Hardin. U.S.A.F.R

"On the War Crimes Trials in General and the Doenitz case in particular, I have always thought that these trials were a mistake and that military commanders on the losing side should not be tried for war crimes by international military tribunals set up by the victors...." - Major General William F. Tomkins, USA

"... cannot be considered morally valid." - - Honourable Pierre Etienne Flandin, French jurist and statesman

"I was of the opinion that the victorious nation was indulging in hypocrisy in bringing the reputable German military leaders to trial for war crimes." - Admiral E.T Wooldridge, U.S.N. Commandant, The National War College

"It was a shameful manifestation of the 'Vae Victis' mentality." - Lieutenant General Erik Testrup, Royal Swedish Army

"A throwback to the days of barbarism, a proof of man's inhumanity to man, a complete lack of decent respect for the welfare of our fellow-man, and a violation of all elements of justice and decency." - Major General Clements McMullen, U.S.A.F

"So, the Nuremberg Trials were illegal - a reflection on discipline. I hold Admiral Doenitz in the highest esteem, and his trial and imprisonment were outrageous." - Rear Admiral John Wainwright, U.S.N. (Commanded Yangste River Patrol.)

"I have long held firm views on the trials of military persons for what I always regarded as political 'crimes.' In fact, I felt so strongly that I asked to be excused . . ." - Major General Robert S. Beightler, USA

"... a renewal of the old way of thinking, 'woe to the vanquished,' not worthy of any civilized nation." - Major General L. Melander, Army of Finland

"A false tribunal based on false laws." - General Emile Janssens, Royal Belgian Army

"A permanent blot on the record of the allies." - Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, Ph.D. American historian

"The spirit which led the British and American people to look on complacently while their authorities were committing the monstrous injustice of holding the Nuremberg Trials, was nothing new; for it is latent in every savage beast; . . .

"Consequently, in the matter of chivalry, justice and fair-play, the English record is even blacker than it was after World War I and the savagery and inhumanity that was displayed was far less restrained. . .

"From the looting and the sadistic ill-treatment of the defenceless population of the allied troops and control officials - Englishmen, Frenchmen, Russians and Americans, to the despicable display of troglodytic beastliness in the Nuremberg Trials, where Englishmen, Frenchmen and Americans sank to the level of Russian prosecutors in a 'Great Purge' trial and committed the extra infamy of pretending that the proceedings were 'legal' and 'just'.

"At least when the ancients 'liquidated' the military or other leaders of their defeated enemy, they marched a Caractacus or a Vercingetorix through the streets of Rome, they never aggravated the iniquity by trying to make it appear the outcome of a just and bona fide legal process." - Anthony M. Ludovici, English Army Officer, (World War.1) Philosopher and author of 33 works, 1909 - 1960

"There was something cynical and revolting in the spectacle of British, French and American judges sitting on the bench with a colleague representing a country which before, during, and since the trials, had perpetrated half the political crimes in the calendar." - Lord Hankey, House of Lords, May, 5th, 1949

"I have always maintained, and I have written to this effect, that the war crimes trials were wholly illegal from the point of view of international law." - Herbert A. Smith, D.C.L, Professor of International Law, University of London, 1928-1946

"I think the Nuremberg trials are a black page in the history of the world.... I discussed the legality of these trials with some of the lawyers and some of the judges who participated therein. They did not attempt to justify their action on any legal ground." - Edgar N. Eisenhower, American attorney, brother of President Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Accusations by English scribblers of 'barbarism' on the part of Germans or other troops invariably provoke my indignation by their arrant hypocrisy. Accident of fate has brought it about that much of my military and civil career was occupied with the suppression or attempted suppression, of armed rebellion or severe civilian commotion, and I have seen or investigated enough atrocities committed by British and Irish troops in three countries to fill several books." - Aubrey T.O Lees. English Colonial Administrator and Army officer. Served in Ireland during the revolution (1920 - 1922), in Iraq (1922 - 1925, and for ten years in Palestine.

Space limitations preclude further comment. Clearly, nobody but the most grievously misinformed could lay claim to the Nuremberg processes as being anything other than a disgraceful slide into ancient Rome's barbarism, equaled only by the blood-letting of Stalin's purges.

Suffice it is to say that these comments are as one with the more fully expressed sentiments volunteered by many thousands of similarly well informed and often illustrious men - and women, who were better placed than most to offer an opinion.

Those who do wish to avail themselves of the more fulsome comment offered by the sampling of 388 highly placed authorities, I recommend to Doenitz at Nuremberg: A Re-Appraisal. H.K Thompson, Jnr. and Henry Strutz; published by Amber Publishing Corp. 21, Hudson Street, New York City 10013, New York City. ISBN 0-916788-01-6 Library of Congress Card No.75-26202.







Les accusés de Nuremberg ne croyaient pas aux accusations des Alliés

Il n'y a pas de témoignage plus éloquent de la tragédie et de la tyrannie du procès de Nuremberg que la réaction d'étonnement pathétique ou d'incrédulité outragée des accusés en entendant les inculpations grotesques dont ils devaient se justifier. C'est ce qui apparaît dans la déposition du général SS Heinz Fanslau qui visita la plupart des camps de concentration pendant la dernière phase de la guerre. Bien que faisant partie des unités combattantes de la Waffen-SS, Fanslau s'était préoccupé des conditions qui régnaient dans les camps de concentration et il fut pour les Alliés une proie de choix devant leur permettre de prouver qu'il y avait eu entente criminelle en vue d'exterminer les Juifs. On prétendit qu'il avait dû être impliqué à fond dans cette entreprise d'extermination étant donné ses nombreux contacts avec les commandants des camps de concentration. Quand on sut qu'il allait être jugé, des centaines d'anciens détenus des camps qu'il avait visités firent des dépositions en sa faveur. Après avoir lu l'acte d'accusation du personnel des camps de concentration au Procès de Nuremberg No 4 du 6 mai 1947, Fanslau manifesta son incrédulité en ces termes: "Cela ne peut pas être possible car j'aurais dû aussi en avoir eu connaissance". Il faut attirer l'attention du lecteur sur le fait que, pendant tous les procès de Nuremberg, les dirigeants allemands au banc des accusés ne crurent jamais un seul instant aux allégations du Ministère Public des Alliés. Hermann Goering, qui dut soutenir tout le choc de la propagande faite à Nuremberg sur les prétendues atrocités, ne fut pas convaincu par cette mise en scène. Hans Fritzsche, qui passait en jugement en sa qualité de fonctionnaire le plus haut en grade du ministère de Goebbels, rapporte que Goering, même après avoir entendu la déposition d'Ohlendorf sur les Einsatzgruppen, et celle de Hoess sur Auschwitz, resta convaincu que cette histoire de l'extermination des Juifs était une pure invention de la propagande (The Sword in the Scales, Londres, 1953, p.145). A un moment donné du procès, Goering déclara avec l'accent de la conviction que "c'était précisément ici, à Nuremberg" qu'il en avait entendu parler pour la première fois (Shirer, ibid, p.1147). Les écrivains juifs Poliakov, Reitlinger, Manvell et Frankl, essaient tous d'impliquer Goering dans cette prétendue extermination, mais dans son livre Hermann Goering (Göttingen, 1956), Charles Bewley montre que le Tribunal de Nuremberg ne trouva aucune preuve de cette accusation.

Hans Fritzsche réfléchit à toute cette question pendant les procès et il en conclut qu'il n'y avait pas eu certainement d'enquête approfondie pour étayer ces accusations monstrueuses. Fritzsche fut acquitté; il avait été l'adjoint de Goebbels et un spécialiste de la propagande. Il découvrit que le prétendu massacre des Juifs était le point central de l'accusation contre tous les accusés.

Kaltenbrunner, successeur de Heydrich comme chef de l'Office Supérieur de Sécurité du Reich, qui fut le principal accusé pour la SS puisque Himmler s'était suicidé, n'était pas plus convaincu que Goering de la véracité de ces accusations de génocide. Il confia à Fritzsche que le Ministère Public enregistrait des succès apparents grâce à sa technique de coaction, de contrainte exercée sur les témoins et de suppression des preuves; c'est exactement ce que les juges américains Wenersturm et van Roden avaient reproché au Tribunal de Nuremberg.

Source: Les Procès de Nuremberg "SIX MILLIONS DE MORTS" (JUIFS) LE SONT-ILS RÉELEMENT? En tout: 3 millions de Juifs en Europe occupée. La politique allemande envers les Juifs avant la guerre, par Richard E. HARWOOD.





La démission du Juge Wenersturm

La motivation réelle des procès de Nuremberg fut dénoncée par le juge américain Wenersturm, Président d'un des tribunaux de Nuremberg. Il fut tellement écoeuré par le procès qu'il donna sa démission et retourna aux Etats-Unis après avoir remis au Chicago Tribune une déclaration dans laquelle il énumérait point par point ses objections (cf. Mark Lautern, Das letzte Wort über Nurnberg, p.56). Voici le texte des points 3 à 8:

3. Les membres du Ministère Public, au lieu d'essayer de formuler un nouveau principe légal qui puisse servir de guide, furent poussés uniquement par l'ambition personnelle et le désir de vengeance.

4. Le Ministère Public fit l'impossible pour empêcher les avocats de préparer la défense de chaque accusé et pour qu'ils ne puissent pas produire des témoignages ni des preuves à décharge.

5. Le Ministère Public, dirigé par le Général Taylor, fit l'impossible pour empêcher qu'on demande à Washington de fournir au Tribunal d'autres documents en possession du Gouvernement américain.

6. 90% des personnes composant le Tribunal étaient prévenues contre les accusés pour des raisons politiques ou raciales et favorisaient l'accusation.

7. Le Ministère Public fit en sorte de confier tous les emplois administratifs du Tribunal Militaire à des "Américains" naturalisés de fraîche date qui s'ingéniaient à créer une ambiance hostile aux accusés dans leurs traductions, dans les affaires administratives, etc.

8. Le but réel des procès de Nuremberg fut de montrer aux Allemands les crimes de leur Führer et ce but fut en même temps le prétexte des procès... Si j'avais su sept mois plus tôt ce qui se passait à Nuremberg, je n'y serais jamais allé!

En ce qui concerne le point 6 "90% des personnes composant le Tribunal étaient prévenues contre les accusés pour les raisons politiques ou raciales", ce fait fut confirmé par d'autres personnes présentes. Suivant Earl Carrol juriste américain, le personnel du Ministère Public comprenait 60% de Juifs allemands qui avaient quitté le Reich après la promulgation des lois raciales hitlériennes. Il nota qu'il n'y avait même pas 10% des Américains employés par le Tribunal de Nuremberg qui étaient réellement Américains de naissance.

Il est donc évident que le principe juridique fondamental selon lequel on ne peut pas être à la fois juge et partie a été bafoué complètement. En outre la majorité des témoins étaient aussi des Juifs. Maurice Bardèche, qui suivit également les procès, dit que la seule préoccupation de ces témoins était de ne pas manifester trop ouvertement leur haine et d'essayer de donner une impression d'objectivité (Nuremberg ou la Terre Promise, Paris, 1948, p.149)

Source: SSx: sagashoah 2



Le juge van Roden

Les méthodes qui permirent d'obtenir ces "aveux" furent révélées dans le Daily News de Washington du 9 janvier 1949 par le juge américain Edward L. van Roden, un des trois membres de la Commission Simpson de l'armée américaine qui fit une enquête sur les méthodes utilisées par la justice lors du procès de Dachau. Son récit parut également dans le journal britannique Sunday Pictorial du 23 janvier 1949. "Les Américains se déguisaient en prêtres pour entendre les accusés en confession et leur donner l'absolution; ils les torturaient en leur enfonçant des allumettes enflammées sous les ongles; ils leur cassaient les dents et la mâchoire; ils les laissaient seuls en cellule au secret pendant longtemps et ne leur donnaient que des rations de famine." Van Roden expliqua: "Les ''aveux'' qui furent retenus comme preuves à charge au procès avaient été obtenus après avoir gardé ces hommes au secret, seuls dans une cellule, pendant 3, 4 et 5 mois...Pour interroger les accusés, les Américains leur mettaient une cagoule noire sur la tête et ils les frappaient ensuite au visage avec des coups-de-poing américains en laiton, ils leur donnaient des coups de pied et les battaient avec des flexibles en caoutchouc... Sur les 139 cas de notre enquête, 137 de ces soldats allemands avaient reçu des coups de pied dans les testicules qui leur avaient laissé des blessures inguérissables. C'était un moyen standard utilisé dans les interrogatoires par ces Américains."


Source: Les Procès de Nuremberg "SIX MILLIONS DE MORTS" (JUIFS) LE SONT-ILS RÉELEMENT? En tout: 3 millions de Juifs en Europe occupée. La politique allemande envers les Juifs avant la guerre, par Richard E. HARWOOD.







Des "aveux" extorqués par la torture
Mais il y a encore un élément bien plus troublant: les méthodes utilisées à Nuremberg pour arracher des déclarations et des "aveux", spécialement pour obtenir des "aveux" des officiers SS pour soutenir l'accusation d'extermination. Le Sénateur américain Joseph McCarthy, dans une déclaration à la Presse américaine du 20 mai 1949, signala les cas de torture suivants, pour obtenir des aveux des accusés:
"A la prison de Schwabisch Hall, des officiers de la SS Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler furent battus jusqu'à ce qu'ils baignèrent dans leur sang, on leur écrasa ensuite les parties sexuelles quand ils étaient étendus sur le sol. Comme on le fit pour de simples soldats pendant le Procès de Malmédy de triste notoriété, les prisonniers furent suspendus par les mains et battus jusqu'à ce qu'ils acceptent de signer les aveux qu'on leur demandait.

C'est sur la base de tels "aveux" arrachés par la torture au Général SS Sepp Dietrich et à Joachim Peiper, colonel de la Waffen SS, que la Leibstandarte fut déclarée "organisation criminelle". Quant au Général SS Oswald Pohl, intendant des camps de concentration, on lui barbouilla le visage de matières fécales et il fut battu ensuite jusqu'à ce qu'il fasse des "aveux"."

A propos de ces cas de torture, le Sénateur McCarthy dit à la Presse: "J'ai entendu des témoins et j'ai lu des témoignages prouvant que les accusés furent battus, maltraités et torturés par des méthodes qui ne pouvaient que germer dans des cerveaux malades. On organisa des simulacres de procès et d'exécutions capitales, on leur dit que leurs familles ne recevraient plus de cartes de ravitaillement s'ils n'avouaient pas. Toutes ces choses se firent avec l'approbation du Ministère Public pour créer l'ambiance psychologique nécessaire pour leur arracher les aveux désirés. Si les Etats-Unis permettent que de tels actes restent impunis, le monde entier aura le droit de nous blâmer sévèrement et de douter à jamais de la rectitude de nos motifs et de notre intégrité morale."
Ces méthodes d'intimidation furent répétées lors des procès de Francfort/s/Main et de Dachau, et un très grand nombre d'Allemands furent condamnés pour des atrocités qu'ils avaient "avouées" dans de telles conditions. Les méthodes qui permirent d'obtenir ces aveux furent révélées dans le Daily News de Washington du 9 janvier 1949 par le juge américain Edward L. van Roden, un des trois membres de la Commission Simpson de l'armée américaine qui fit une enquête sur les méthodes utilisées par la justice lors du procès de Dachau. Son récit parut également dans le journal britannique Sunday Pictorial du 23 janvier 1949. "Les Américains se déguisaient en prêtres pour entendre les accusés en confession et leur donner l'absolution; ils les torturaient en leur enfonçant des allumettes enflammées sous les ongles; ils leur cassaient les dents et la mâchoire; ils les laissaient seuls en cellule au secret pendant longtemps et ne leur donnaient que des rations de famine." Van Roden expliqua: "Les ''aveux'' qui furent retenus comme preuves à charge au procès avaient été obtenus après avoir gardé ces hommes au secret, seuls dans une cellule, pendant 3, 4 et 5 mois...Pour interroger les accusés, les Américains leur mettaient une cagoule noire sur la tête et ils les frappaient ensuite au visage avec des coups-de-poing américains en laiton, ils leur donnaient des coups de pied et les battaient avec des flexibles en caoutchouc... Sur les 139 cas de notre enquête, 137 de ces soldats allemands avaient reçu des coups de pied dans les testicules qui leur avaient laissé des blessures inguérissables. C'était un moyen standard utilisé dans les interrogatoires par ces Américains."

Voici les noms de ces "Américains" chargés de ces interrogatoires (et qui, plus tard, firent office de Ministère Public lors des procès): Lt.-Col. Burton, Capt. Raphael Shumacker, Lt. Robert E. Byrne, Lt. William R. Perl, Mr. Morris Ellowitz, Mr. Harry Thon et Mr. Kirschbaum. Le conseiller juridique du tribunal était le Col. A. H. Rosenfeld. Le lecteur verra immédiatement d'après leurs noms que la majorité de ces personnes étaient "prévenues contre les accusés pour des raisons raciales" pour reprendre les mots du juge Wenersturm -- c'est-à-dire qu'ils étaient Juifs et qu'on n'aurait jamais dû leur confier une enquête de ce genre.

Malgré le fait que des "aveux" de l'extermination des Juifs furent arrachés dans ces conditions, les dépositions faites aux procès de Nuremberg sont encore considérées comme une preuve concluante de l'assassinat de Six Millions de Juifs par des écrivains tels que Reitlinger et d'autres, et l'on maintient l'illusion que ces procès furent impartiaux et parfaitement conduits dans les règles. Quand on demanda au Général Taylor, Chef du Ministère Public, où il avait trouvé le chiffre de Six Millions de Juifs tués, il répondit qu'il était basé sur les aveux du Général SS Otto Ohlendorf. Ce dernier avait été torturé également et nous examinerons son cas plus loin. Mais en ce qui concerne de tels "aveux" en général, nous ne pouvons mieux faire que de citer le journal britannique Sunday Pictorial quand il publia le rapport du juge van Roden:
"Des hommes forts furent réduits à l'état d'épaves humaines prêtes à marmotter n'importe quels aveux exigés par le Ministère Public."


La déposition de Wisliceny
Examinons maintenant quelques-uns de ces documents de Nuremberg. La déposition de Dieter Wisliceny, capitaine de la SS, un adjoint d'Eichmann qui fut ensuite le chef de la Gestapo en Slovaquie, est le document qui est cité le plus fréquemment pour soutenir la légende des Six Millions et qui occupe une grande place dans le livre de Poliakov et Wulf Das Dritte Reich und die Juden: Dokumente und Aufsätze. Cette déposition fut obtenue dans des conditions encore plus dures que celles que nous avons décrites ci-dessus, puisque Wisliceny tomba aux mains des communistes tchèques et fut "interrogé" en novembre 1946 dans la prison de Bratislava contrôlée par les Soviétiques. Soumis à la torture, Wisliceny fut réduit à l'état d'épave humaine aux nerfs détraqués qui, finalement, se mettait à sangloter pendant des heures, sans pouvoir s'arrêter, avant qu'on l'exécute. Bien que les conditions dans lesquelles sa déposition fut obtenue lui enlèvent toute vraisemblance, Poliakov préfère ignorer ce "détail" et écrit simplement: "En prison, Wisliceny écrivit plusieurs mémoires qui contiennent des renseignements très intéressants" (Harvest of Hate, p.3). Ces mémoires contiennent quelques faits véridiques pour donner un cachet d'authenticité, par exemple que Himmler préconisait avec enthousiasme l'émigration juive et que l'émigration des Juifs européens se poursuivit pendant la guerre, mais généralement, ils correspondent au type des "aveux" spectaculaires qui font partie de la mise en scène des grands procès en URSS. Il y est question souvent de l'extermination des Juifs et ces déclarations essaient d'une manière flagrante de mettre en cause le plus de chefs SS possible. On y trouve aussi de nombreuses erreurs concrètes, notamment l'affirmation que la guerre avec la Pologne eut pour conséquence que 3 millions de Juifs en plus se retrouvèrent dans les territoires occupés par l'Allemagne, mais nous avons démontré plus haut que c'était faux.




Le premier révisionniste à avoir soutenu (à Nuremberg) qu'il y a pas eu d'holocauste.

JULIUS STREICHER


Streicher fut pendu pour "incitation à la haine raciale", un crime qui semble devenir de plus en plus populaire. Le cas de Streicher est remarquable dans le sens que des nations prêchant la séparation de l'Eglise et de l'Etat, aussi bien que la liberté de la parole et de la presse, avaient conspiré avec des juifs et des communistes pour faire pendre un homme coupable d'avoir exprimé des opinions dont l'exactitude n'était pas contestée.

Un des crimes commis par Streicher fut la publication d'un supplément sur les "Meurtres rituels juifs" dans son journal Der Stuermer. Il fut expressément admis par l'accusation que les illustrations de Streicher étaient authentiques (V 103 ; 119), et que l'article était correctement référencé. Parmi les références de Streicher figurait celle d'au moins un savant reconnu, le Dr. Erich Bischof, de Leipzig, ainsi que des poursuites pénales modernes (IX 696-700 ; 767-771). Il était de l'opinion du Tribunal que rechercher la validité des références de Streicher aurait prolongé le procès d'une façon démesurée, c'est pourquoi l'exactitude de l'article ne fut pas contestée. Comme alternative, une espèce de télépathie mentale fut exécutée, et Streicher fut pendu pour sa prétendue manière de penser et pour sa motivation.

Un autre crime commis par Streicher fut d'avoir appelé le Vieux Testament une "histoire criminelle horrible... ce 'livre saint' est riche en meurtres, inceste, fraude, vol, et indécence". Aucune preuve ne fut présentée pour réfuter cette affirmation (V 96 ; 112).

Streicher devint fameux comme "pornographe", "perverti sexuel", et "escroc". La "collection de pornographie", examinée de plus près, se révéla être l'archive de judaica de son journal (XII 40 ; 445). L'accusation de "perversion sexuelle", fortement soulignée par les Russes, prit racine dans le soi-disant Rapport Goering, une procédure disciplinaire du Parti, entamée par un des nombreux ennemis de Streicher. Cette accusation fut abandonnée pendant le procès, et radiée du procès-verbal des audiences. Streicher fut informé qu'il ne devrait répondre à aucune demande afférente à cette accusation (XII 330, 339 ; 359).

L'"escroquerie immobilière" était aussi dérivée du Rapport Goering, et se référait à un seul cas, celui de Mars-Werke. L'homme responsable des accusations contenues dans le rapport, par on ne sait quelle coincidence curieuse, était aussi responsable de l'achat (V 106;  123). Le Rapport affirme que les actions ont été rendues, et que l'argent que Streicher avait payé pour les actions, 5.000 Reichsmarks, lui a été remboursé après l'enquête.

Streicher avait donné à ses administrateurs pleins pouvoirs pour faire ce qu'ils voulaient, disant: "Ne m'ennuyez pas avec vos affaires d'argent. Il y a des choses plus importantes que l'argent". Streicher affirma que son journal avait été édité dans une maison louée jusqu'à la fin de la guerre; ce n'était pas un journal du Parti; Streicher n'avait rien eu à voir avec la guerre.

Un des employés de Streicher comparut comme témoin et affirma: "Quiconque connaît Herr Streicher comme moi, sait bien que Herr Streicher n'a jamais pris quoi que ce soit d'un juif" (XII 385-386 ; 420).

La deuxième femme de Streicher, Adele Streicher, comparut et témoigna, "Je considère totalement impossible que Julius Streicher ait acquis des actions de cette manière. Je crois qu'il ne sait même pas à quoi ressemble une action" (XII 391 ; 426).

Il ne fut pas prétendu au procès de Nuremberg que Streicher écrivait tous les articles de son journal lui-même. 'Trau keinem Fuchs auf gruener Heid, und keinem Jud' bei seinem Eid' [Ne te fies pas à un renard, ni à aucun juif, même s'il a juré], traduit par l'accusation en Don't Trust a Fox Whatever You Do, Nor Yet the Oath of Any Jew (XXXVIII 129), avait repris son titre de Martin Luther. Der Giftpilz [le champignon vénéneux] fut écrit par un des rédacteurs de Streicher sous l'inspiration d'une fameuse série de crimes crapuleux contre des enfants, commis par un industriel juif, Louis Schloss (XII 335 ; 364-365).

Schloss fut finalement assassiné à Dachau, ce qui devint encore "une atrocité nazie". Dans la discussion du meurtre de Schloss de la part de l'accusation, il ne fut jamais mentionné qu'il s'agissait d'un pervers dangereux reconnu coupable d'attentats à la pudeur sur des enfants; au contraire, il fut tacitement suggéré que Schloss avait été tué tout simplement parce qu'il était juif, et pour aucune autre raison (Document 664-PS, XXVI 174-187).

Aucun lien de causalité ne fut jamais prouvé entre les "propos antisémites" de Streicher, Frank, ou Rosenberg et la commission d'aucun crime; il ne fut jamais prouvé non plus que le crime concerné, i.e., le prétendu "Holocauste des juifs" ait jamais eu lieu. Mais cela fut tout simplement supposé, et les écrits de Streicher furent supposés avoir contribué à le "provoquer".

Streicher fit quelques propos "hautement inconvenants" qui furent radiés du procès-verbal des débats, et pour lesquels il fut blâmé par le Tribunal avec le consentement de son avocat, le Dr. Marx. Un de ces propos a été supprimé après le 5ème alinéa à la page 310 du procès-verbal typographié, mais peut être trouvé aux pages 8494-5 du procès-verbal ronéotypé. Streicher dit:
"Si je pouvais terminer avec une description de ma vie, ce serait avec la description d'une expérience qui vous montrera, messieurs du Tribunal, que même sans le consentement du gouvernement, des choses peuvent arriver qui ne sont pas humaines, pas en accord avec les principes de l'humanité.

"Messieurs, je fus arrêté, et pendant ma détention j'expérimentais des choses comme celles que nous, la Gestapo, sommes accusés d'avoir commises. Pendant quatre jours je fus sans vêtements dans une cellule. Je fus brûlé. Je fus jeté au sol, et on m'a attaché avec une chaîne de fer. Je devais embrasser les pieds de gardiens noirs qui me crachaient à la figure. Deux hommes de couleur et un officier blanc crachaient dans ma bouche, et quand je ne l'ouvrais plus, ils me l'ont ouverte avec un bâton en bois; et quand je demandais de l'eau, on m'emmenait à la latrine et on m'a ordonné de boire là.

"A Wiesbaden, messieurs, un médecin a pris pitié de moi, et je déclare ici qu'un directeur juif de l'hôpital s'est comporté correctement. Je dis ici, pour ne pas être incompris, que les officiers juifs qui nous gardent ici en prison ont agi correctement, et que les médecins qui me traitent, eux aussi sont pleins de considération. Et vous pouvez voir dans mes propos le contraste de cette prison-là jusqu'au moment présent".
Un autre "propos inconvenant" fut supprimé après le premier alinéa à la page 349 du volume XII, mais se trouve au procès-verbal ronéotypé à la page 8549:
"Pour éviter tout malentendu, je dois dire qu'on m'a tellement battu à Freising, et cela pendant des journées sans vêtements, que j'ai perdu 40% de ma capacité d'audition, et les gens se moquent de moi quand je pose des questions. Je ne peux rien faire si on m'a traité de cette façon. Donc, je dois demander que l'on me repose la question encore une fois."
Ce à quoi le Lt. Col. Griffith-Jones répliqua:
"Je peux vous la montrer, et nous la répéterons aussi fort que vous le désirez".
Puisqu'il s'agissait d'une affaire de la connaissance personnelle de Streicher et pas de oui-dire, il est difficile de comprendre pourquoi les propos furent supprimés, tandis que des oui-dire favorables à l'accusation furent retenus (en effet, les preuves de l'accusation consistent en des oui-dire écrits et oraux, et pas grand-chose d'autre). Si les autorités de l'accusation ne croyaient pas les affirmations de Streicher selon lesquelles il avait été torturé, elles étaient libres de le contre-interroger pour déceler d'éventuelles incohérences et prouver qu'il avait menti. Mais au lieu de procéder ainsi, il fut tout simplement réprimandé et les propos supprimés. Ce qui montre bien peu de considération pour la vérité, la justice, et un procès impartial.

Streicher affirma que ses appels à l'"extermination" de la juiverie avaient été provoqués, pour la plupart, par les bombardements et les appels à l'extermination du peuple allemand de l'autre côté.
"Si en Amérique un juif du nom de Erich Kauffman peut exiger publiquement que tous les Allemands capables d'engendrer des enfants soient stérilisés, afin d'exterminer le peuple allemand, alors moi je dis, dent pour dent, et oeil pour oeil. C'est donc une affaire purement théorique et littéraire" (XII 366; 398-399). (V 91-119 106-137; XII 305-416 332-453; XVIII 190-220 211-245).

Source : NON COUPABLE AU PROCES DE NUREMBERG, L'argumentation de la défense par Carlos Porter
Julius Streicher entra à 2 h 11. [Rédacteur en chef du célèbre magazine Der Stürmer, Streicher s'était trouvé en désaccord avec Adolf Eichmann qui lui demandait, encore en mai 1938, d'abandonner ses diatribes antijuives au profit de son soutien à la collaboration d'Eichmann avec la Haganah sioniste pour l'entraînement des juifs allemands à des activités agricoles et militaires en Palestine. «Eichmann échoua.» (H.W. Koch, Aspects of the Third Reich, St Martin's Press, New York, 1985, p. 377.)]

Tilles raconte que Streicher portait un costume râpé et une chemise bleue usée et boutonnée jusqu'au cou sans cravate. Il s'arrêta un moment, regarda les potences, puis parcourut la salle d'un œil furieux et arrêta son regard sur les officiers alliés. Devant la commission quadripartite, il dégagea son bras droit des mains de son garde, le leva pour le salut familier des fascistes et cria : «Heil Hitler !»

A ce moment, Tilles regarda le bourreau Woods et vit sa mâchoire se serrer et ses yeux s'enflammer d'une haine ardente ; il sut que Woods traiterait Streicher d'une manière différente des autres nazis. Streicher, maintenant sur la potence, s'écria : «A présent, je m'en remets à Dieu !» Après qu'on lui eut attaché les mains et les pieds, il s'exclama : «C'est la fête de Pourim 1946 ! [1]» Ainsi cet érudit, ce pourfendeur de juifs rappelait-il le livre d'Esther et l'exécution d'Aman et de ses fils par les juifs dans la Perse du Ve siècle avant J.-C. où, en tout, quelque 75 000 ennemis des juifs furent massacrés en une journée.

Quand, près de la potence, l'officier américain demanda à Streicher s'il voulait dire un dernier mot, celui-ci cria : «Un jour ce sont les Bolcheviks qui vous pendront !»

Le sergent Woods s'arrêta un instant et dévisagea le nazi, l'homme cultivé directeur de publication. Il fallait que cette pendaison fût différente. Tilles le vit placer le nœud de la corde à un pouce [2,5 cm] ou plus de l'emplacement habituel qui garantissait la cassure du cou et, avec elle, une mort instantanée. Lorsque la trappe s'ouvrit, il fut évident pour tous, écrit Tilles, que le halètement et les gargouillements de Streicher prouvaient qu'il se mourait lentement par étouffement. Tous les observateurs parurent conscients de cette entorse à la procédure normale, mais personne ne dit mot.

La trappe avait été ouverte à 2 h 14. C'est quatorze minutes plus tard, à 2 h 28, que l'on prononça la mort de Streicher.

Cette pendaison est aussi connue que celle des autres condamnés, mais l'aspect particulier de cette macabre torture ne l'est pas. Nous savons gré à Stan Tilles de nous avoir rapporté, après bien des années, ce témoignage oculaire. Il fournit à la recherche historique un aperçu de ce que peut l'homme quand la haine l'inspire. La haine de Streicher pour les juifs trouvait son expression écrite dans sa revue. La haine des juifs pour les Gentils se trouve gravée dans l'ensemble, antique et vénérable, des volumes du Talmud. Quant à la vengeance personnelle de Woods, elle était, en partie, fondée sur une éducation qui ne lui permettait guère de comprendre le sens de la guerre que l'Allemagne avait menée contre le bolchevisme.

Si Julius Streicher avait, par exemple, eu à pendre le général Nikitchenko, peut-être l'aurait-il traité comme Woods l'avait lui-même traité car, sur le chapitre des horreurs du bolchevisme, il en savait long.

Julius Streicher (1885-1946) avait fondé, en 1923, Der Stürmer, un périodique antijuif. Il dirigea un «Comité central contre la propagande juive», ses «récits d'atrocités» et son «incitation au boycottage». Il fut Gauleiter de Franconie, poste dont il fut démis en mars 1940 et, en disgrâce, n'exerça dès lors plus aucune activité politique. Pendant la guerre, il cultiva ses terres et ne put obtenir d'être envoyé au front. En mai 1945, il fut fait prisonnier par les Américains et torturé dans la prison de Freising. Il fut condamné à mort par les juges de Nuremberg non pour ce qu'il avait fait (aucune action précise ne pouvait lui être imputée) mais pour ce qu'il avait pensé et écrit, sans enfreindre les lois de son pays, non plus, d'ailleurs, que les lois britanniques et américaines qui autorisaient à cette époque l'expression de l'antisémitisme. Dans son ouvrage sur Les Procès criminels de l'après-guerre, le professeur J.A. Martinez, spécialiste de droit criminel en matière internationale, qualifie de «grave» la condamnation à mort de Streicher «qui, quoique reconnu innocent des charges 1, 2 et 3, [fut] condamné à la potence» (Albin Michel, 1958, p. 389). Le Tribunal jugea l'accusé coupable, pour ses écrits, de «crimes contre l'humanité» [charge 4 et dernière]. J. Streicher avait eu l'extrême témérité de dire : «Aujourd'hui encore je ne puis croire que 5 000 000 de juifs aient été tués. Du point de vue technique, je considère la chose comme impossible. Je n'y crois pas. Je n'en ai, jusqu'ici, aucune preuve» (TMI, XII, p. 381 ; version allemande IMG, XII, p. 406 ; voy. également, sur les impossibilités techniques, TMI, XII, p. 328 et IMG, XII, p. 350).

Le 26 avril 1946, il décrivit les tortures dont il avait été victime. Le Times du lendemain consacra deux alinéas à ce point de sa déposition. J. Streicher revint sur le sujet le 29 avril. Le 30 avril, sur la demande du procureur américain Jackson, le président du Tribunal, le Britannique Lord Justice Lawrence, décida de rayer du procès-verbal des débats les pages 8494, 8495, 8496 et 8549 où Streicher décrivait ses tortures. Ces pages ne figurent donc pas dans les 42 volumes de débats, documents et index du procès de Nuremberg (voy. TMI, XII, p. 406-407). Il convient d'ajouter que l'avocat de l'accusé, Hanns Marx, se déclara d'accord avec le procureur américain : «Je suis d'accord pour que ces passages soient supprimés, parce que j'estime qu'ils n'ont aucun intérêt pour la défense de l'accusé» (Ibid., p. 406). D'une manière générale, H. Marx semble avoir eu vis-à-vis de son client un comportement assez proche de celui des avocats en régime communiste.

En 1984, l'Américain Keith Stimely allait publier un important document sur les tortures subies par J. Streicher : «The Torture of Julius Streicher, A Documentary Exposé», The Journal of Historical Review, printemps 1984, p. 106-119.

Sur le cercueil dans lequel le corps de J. Streicher fut transporté au four crématoire, les Américains, par une ultime dérision, inscrivirent un prénom et un nom juifs : «Abraham Goldberg» (Werner Maser, Nürnberg, Tribunal der Sieger [Nuremberg, Tribunal des vainqueurs], Knaur, 1979, p. 7).

1. En 1946, Pourim a été fêté le 15 février. J. Streicher a sans doute voulu dire que les juifs pouvaient désormais célébrer deux Pourim, celui du Ve siècle avant J.C. et celui du XXe siècle après J.C. — NDLR.

Source : Le sergent John Woods, bourreau de Nuremberg. par Robert H.Countess, in Revue d’Histoire Révisionniste, n° 3, juin 1990, p. 59-64





VIDEO - TORTURE OF JULIUS STREICHER IN HIS OWN WORDS. April 1946


New York Review of Books:
When abuse of German prisoners was investigated in the US-run Schwaebisch Hall prison near Stuttgart in 1945, " of the 139 cases examined, 137 had had their testicles permanently destroyed."



British historian Giles MacDonogh in his book After the Reich charges that SS officers were subjected to brutal torture by US military interrogators at a prison facility near Stuttgart (source):
More conventional methods of torture included kicks to the groin, deprivation of sleep and food and savage beatings. When the Americans set up a commission of inquiry into the methods used by their investigators, they found that, of the 139 cases examined, 137 had “had their testicles permanently destroyed by kicks received from the American War Crimes Investigation team.”




Rudolf Hoess: The Legal Implications of his Forced Confession
By Joseph P. Bellinger

Background:

Rudolf Hoess, Commandant of Auschwitz from 1940 - 1943 was captured by the British on March 13, 1946. Affadavits written and signed in English were forced from Hoess on several occasions. Although in regard to the charges of "crimes against humanity" Hoess was arguably the most important prisoner, his role at Nuremberg was not as one of the convicted by as a defense witness for Ernest Kaltenbrunner. Today Hoess' confession obtained through torture along with his testimony at Nuremberg and his later "memoirs" written while awaiting execution in a Polish prison cell make up some of the most important evidence to support the Holocaust story. Establishment historians tend to ignore the methods used to obtain the Hoess "confessions." Revisionist historians have argued for years that the Hoess "confessions" are basically worthless due to how they were obtained. Since so much of the Hoess testimony was derived for a court of law or became part of the legal record, it is only fair that the proper legal implications of his torture, which included threats to his direct family members, be reviewed.




Comment les Britanniques ont obtenu les aveux de Rudolf Höss...

Rudolf Höss fut le premier des trois commandants successifs du camp de concentration d'Auschwitz. Il est souvent appelé "le commandant d'Auschwitz" et le grand public connaît de lui des écrits qui ont été publiés sous le titre : Le Commandant d'Auschwitz parle... Il a comparu devant le TMI (Tribunal militaire international) en qualité de témoin, le 15 avril 1946. Sa déposition fit sensation. A la stupéfaction des accusés et en présence de la presse du monde entier, il confessa les crimes les plus affreux que l'Histoire eût jamais connus. Il disait avoir personnellement reçu l'ordre de Himmler d'exterminer les juifs. Il estimait qu'à Auschwitz on avait exterminé trois millions d'hommes dont deux millions et demi par le moyen de chambres à gaz homicides. Ces aveux étaient faux. Ils lui avaient été extorqués par la torture. Il a fallu attendre 1983 pour connaître l'identité des tortionnaires et la nature des tortures.

Le cœur même des aveux de R. Höss est constitué par quatre pièces qui, dans l'ordre chronologique, sont les suivantes :

1) Une déposition écrite signée le 14 mars (ou le 15mars ?) 1946 à 2h 30 du matin ; il s'agit d'un texte dactylographié de huit pages, rédigées en allemand ; je ne pense pas qu'en temps ordinaire une seule instance judiciaire des pays démocratiques accepterait de prendre en considération ces pages dépourvues de tout en-tête et de toute référence administrative imprimée et fourmillant de corrections diverses, soit dactylographiées, soit manuscrites, sans l'accompagnement du moindre paraphe et sans aucun rappel, à la fin, du nombre de mots corrigés ou supprimés. Höss a signé une première fois après avoir écrit : "14.3.46 – 2h 30". Il a procédé de même après deux lignes qui auraient dû être manuscrites mais qui sont dactylographiées et qui disent :

J'ai lu le texte ci-dessus ; je confirme qu'il correspond à mes propres déclarations et que c'est la pure vérité.

Suivent les noms et les signatures de deux témoins : deux sergents britanniques ; l'un n'a pas mentionné la date tandis que l'autre indique celle du 15 mars. Vient enfin la signature d'un capitaine de la 92e section de la sécurité militaire en campagne qui certifie que les deux sergents ont été présents durant toute la procédure où le prisonnier Rudolf Höss a fait volontairement sa déposition. La date est celle du 14 mars 1946. Rien n'indique le lieu !

La cote que les Alliés ont attribuée à ce document est NO-1210.

2) Une déclaration sous serment (en anglais : affidavit) signée le 5 avril 1946, soit vingt-deux jours plus tard. Il s'agit d'un texte dactylographié de deux pages et demie rédigées en anglais. Ce dernier point est surprenant. Höss a donc signé là une déclaration sous serment, non pas dans sa langue mais dans celle de ses gardiens. Sa signature apparaît à trois reprises : d'abord en bas des deux premières pages, puis, à la troisième et dernière page après un texte de quatre lignes, toujours en anglais, toujours dactylographiées et qui disent :

Je comprends l'anglais, langue dans laquelle est rédigé le texte ci-dessus. J'ai déposé selon la vérité ; j'ai fait cette déclaration volontairement et sans contrainte ; après avoir relu ma déposition, je l'ai signée et certifiée, à Nuremberg, Allemagne, le 5e jour d'avril.

Suit la signature du lieutenant-colonel Smith W. Broockhart après la formule :

Après avoir prêté serment et signé en ma présence, le 5e jour d'avril 1946, à Nuremberg, Allemagne.

Par la forme, ce texte est, s'il se peut, encore moins acceptable que le précédent. En particulier, des lignes entières sont ajoutées en capitales manuscrites à la manière anglaise tandis que d'autres sont biffées d'un trait de plume. Il n'y a aucun paraphe en marge de ces corrections, aucun rappel, en fin de document, du nombre de mots rayés nuls.

La cote que les Alliés ont attribuée à ce document est PS-3868.

Pour dissimuler le fait que Höss avait signé une déposition sous serment qui était en anglais alors qu'elle aurait dû être dans sa propre langue, c'est-à-dire en allemand, et pour faire disparaître les ratures, les ajouts et les corrections, voici la supercherie qui fut utilisée à Nuremberg : on retapa le texte au propre et on le présenta comme une translation, sous-entendu de l'allemand en anglais ! Mais le tricheur alla trop vite en besogne. Il crut qu'un ajout manuscrit au paragraphe 10 (dû à une main anglaise) était un ajout à la fin du paragraphe 9. Le résultat de cette méprise est que la fin du paragraphe 9 est rendue totalement incompréhensible.

Il existe donc deux documents différents sous la même cote PS-3868 : la pièce signée par Höss et le remake. C'est le remake, autrement dit le faux grossier, qui fut utilisé devant le Tribunal de Nuremberg. Un ouvrage historique qui prétend reproduire la déclaration PS-3868 de Höss reproduira en fait le remake mais en supprimant sans le dire la fin du paragraphe 9 ainsi que le paragraphe 10 tout entier [1].

3) La déposition orale, si spectaculaire, que j'ai déjà mentionnée et qui fut faite devant le TMI le 15 avril 1946, soit dix jours après la rédaction du document PS-3868. Paradoxalement, c'est un avocat de la défense qui a demandé la comparution de R. Höss : Kurt Kauffmann, défenseur de Ernst Kaltenbrunner, dans l'intention manifeste de montrer que le responsable de l'extermination présumée était Himmler et non Kaltenbrunner. Quand vint le tour pour le représentant du ministère public (en la circonstance, le procureur adjoint américain, le colonel Harlan Amen) d'interroger Höss, il fit semblant de lire la déposition signée par ce dernier et, en réalité, il lut des extraits du remake. Harlan Amen donna un prétexte pour ne pas lire le paragraphe 9 (et, du même coup, le paragraphe Cool. S'interrompant après la lecture de chaque fragment, il demanda à Höss si c'était bien là ce qu'il avait déclaré. Il reçut en tout et pour tout les réponses suivantes :

"Jawohl", "Jawohl", "Jawohl", "Ja, es stimmt". [Une réponse de deux lignes (contenant une énormité, à savoir que les juifs hongrois auraient été tués à Auschwitz à partir de 1943 alors que le premier convoi de ces juifs n'est arrivé à Auschwitz que le 2 mai 1944).] "Jawohl", "Jawohl", "Jawohl". [Une réponse d'une ligne.] "Jawohl", "Jawohl" [2].

Il y aurait eu normalement cent questions à poser sur cette extermination et ces chambres à gaz, c'est-à-dire sur un crime et sur un instrument du crime sans précédent dans l'Histoire, mais personne ne posa ces questions. En particulier, le colonel Amen ne sollicita aucune précision ni aucun complément sur le texte véritablement effrayant dont il donnait lecture ce jour-là en présence de journalistes qui, le lendemain, allaient en faire les grands titres de leurs journaux.

4) Les textes rassemblés généralement sous le titre Le Commandant d'Auschwitz parle.

Höss aurait rédigé ces textes au crayon sous la surveillance de ses geôliers polono-communistes, dans sa prison de Cracovie, en attente de son procès. Il fut condamné à mort le 2 avril 1947 et pendu quatorze jours plus tard dans le camp d'Auschwitz. Il fallut attendre 1958, soit onze ans, pour voir publier en allemand ce qu'on peut appeler ses mémoires. La publication en fut faite par l'historien allemand Martin Broszat, sans respect pour les méthodes de routine des publications scientifiques. Broszat alla jusqu'à supprimer des fragments qui auraient fait trop clairement apparaître que R. Höss ou ses maîtres polonais avaient proféré des énormités, ce qui était dommageable pour la véracité de l'ensemble de ses récits.

Les quatre pièces que je viens d'énumérer ont un étroit rapport de filiation. A y regarder de près, les contradictions ne manquent pas dans leurs contenus respectifs, mais, pour l'essentiel, elles se confirment. Les huit pages de NO-1210 sont en quelque sorte résumées dans les deux pages et quart de PS-3868 ; ce dernier a servi de pièce centrale dans la déposition orale devant le TMI ; enfin, les mémoires rédigés à Cracovie couronnent le tout. La base et la matrice sont donc le document NO-1210. Je vais en reparler.




Révélations de Höss en Pologne, sur sa première confession
(doc. NO-1210 du 14 ou 15 mars 1946)

La guerre avait pris fin en Allemagne le 8 mai 1945. Höss tomba aux mains des Britanniques qui l'enfermèrent dans un camp pour SS. En sa qualité d'agriculteur professionnel, il obtint une libération anticipée. Ses gardiens ignoraient alors l'importance de leur proie. Il fut placé par un bureau de travail comme ouvrier agricole dans une ferme près de Flensburg, non loin de la frontière du Danemark. Il y resta huit mois. La police militaire le recherchait. Sa famille, avec laquelle il avait réussi à maintenir le contact, était strictement surveillée et soumise à des perquisitions fréquentes. Il raconte dans ses mémoires les circonstances de son arrestation et ce qui s'ensuivit. Le traitement qu'il subit fut particulièrement brutal. A première vue on s'étonne que les Polonais aient permis à Höss de faire ces révélations sur la police militaire britannique. A la réflexion, on découvre qu'ils ont pu être guidés par un ou plusieurs des motifs suivants :

– le désir de donner à cette confession une apparence de sincérité et de véracité ;
– l'intention de susciter chez le lecteur une comparaison, flatteuse pour les communistes polonais, entre les méthodes britanniques et les méthodes polonaises ; Höss dira, en effet, plus loin que, dans la première partie de sa détention à Cracovie, on faillit l'"achever" physiquement et surtout moralement mais que, par la suite, on le traita "avec tant de compréhension, tant d'humanité" qu'il consentit à écrire ses mémoires ;

– la nécessité de fournir une explication à certaines absurdités contenues dans le texte (NO-1210) que les policiers britanniques avaient fait signer à R. Höss, l'une de ces absurdités consistant à inventer l'existence d'un "camp d'extermination" en un lieu qui n'a jamais existé sur aucune carte de Pologne : "Wolzek près de Lublin" ; la confusion avec Belzec n'est pas à envisager puisque, aussi bien, Höss parle de trois camps : "Belzek (sic)", "Tublinka (sic)" et "Wolzek près de Lublin". Plus loin, Treblinka sera correctement orthographié. Notons en passant que les camps de Belzec et de Treblinka n'existaient pas encore à l'époque (juin 1941) où Himmler, selon Höss, lui aurait dit qu'ils fonctionnaient déjà comme "camps d'extermination".

Voici en quels termes Höss raconte successivement son arrestation par les Britanniques, sa signature du document qui deviendra le NO-1210, son transfert à Minden-sur-la-Weser où le traitement qu'il subit fut encore pire, son séjour à la prison du Tribunal de Nuremberg et, enfin, son extradition vers la Pologne.

Le 11 mars 1946, à vingt-trois heures, on vint m'arrêter.

Deux jours avant cette date, ma fiole de poison s'était brisée.

Réveillé en sursaut, je pensai être attaqué par des cambrioleurs qui étaient alors très nombreux dans la région : on n'eut donc aucune peine à m'arrêter. Le traitement que je subis de la part de la Field Security Police ne fut pas particulièrement clément.

On m'emmena à Heide et je me retrouvai par hasard dans la caserne même d'où les Anglais m'avaient libéré huit mois plus tôt.

Mon premier interrogatoire fut "frappant" au sens exact du terme. J'ai signé le procès-verbal, mais je ne sais pas ce qu'il contenait : l'alternance de l'alcool et du fouet était trop sensible, même pour moi. Le fouet était ma propriété personnelle : il se trouvait par hasard dans les bagages de ma femme. Je ne crois pas que j'en aie frappé mon cheval et certainement pas les détenus. Mais l'homme qui m'interrogeait pensait probablement que je m'en servais pour battre des prisonniers à longueur de journée.

Au bout de quelques jours, je fus conduit à Minden-sur-la-Weser, centre des interrogatoires de la zone anglaise. Là, j'ai subi un traitement encore plus brutal de la part du procureur militaire, un commandant anglais. Le régime de la prison où je me vis enfermé correspondait à son attitude.

Au bout de trois semaines, je fus brusquement conduit chez le coiffeur qui me rasa la barbe et me coupa les cheveux ; on m'autorisa aussi à me laver. Depuis mon arrestation, c'était la première fois qu'on m'enlevait mes menottes.

Le lendemain, on me transporta en voiture spéciale à Nuremberg, en compagnie d'un prisonnier de guerre qu'on avait amené de Londres comme témoin à décharge pour Fritzsche [3]. [Note de l'auteur : Hans Fritzsche, chargé de la radio et de la presse au ministère de l'Éducation et de la Propagande depuis 1938, acquitté à Nuremberg.]

Après mes expériences précédentes, mon séjour dans la maison d'arrêt me fit l'effet d'une cure en sana. Je me trouvais dans le même pavillon que les principaux accusés et je pouvais les voir constamment lorsqu'on les conduisait au tribunal. Des représentants de tous les pays alliés venaient presque tous les jours faire un tour dans notre prison : chaque fois on me montrait comme une "bête féroce" particulièrement curieuse.

On m'avait fait venir à Nuremberg comme témoin à décharge de Kaltenbrunner, sur demande de son défenseur. Jusqu'à ce jour, je ne suis pas parvenu à comprendre pourquoi c'était moi entre tous qu'on avait choisi pour ce rôle.

Les conditions de mon séjour étaient excellentes sous tous les rapports ; nous disposions d'une grande bibliothèque et je pouvais employer tout mon temps à lire. Mais les interrogatoires étaient vraiment très pénibles : on ne m'infligeait pas de sévices, mais la pression morale était très dure à supporter. Je ne puis en vouloir à mes juges : ils étaient tous juifs.

Ce sont ces juifs désireux de tout savoir qui m'ont psychologiquement disséqué. Ils ne laissaient subsister aucun doute sur le sort qui nous attendait.
Le 25 mai, anniversaire de mon mariage, je fus conduit avec Bihler [sic pour Buehler] et von Burgsdorf à l'aérodrome où l'on me remit à des officiers polonais. Un avion USA. nous transporta par Berlin à Varsovie [4].




Révélations, en 1983, sur les tortionnaires britanniques de R. Höss

Les révisionnistes ont, depuis longtemps, prouvé que les diverses confessions de R. Höss présentaient tant d'erreurs grossières, de non-sens et d'impossibilités de toute nature qu'il n'était plus possible de leur accorder le crédit que les juges de Nuremberg et ceux de Cracovie, ainsi que des historiens de rencontre, leur avaient accordé sans analyse préalable de leur contenu et des circonstances dans lesquelles ces confessions avaient été obtenues.

Selon toute vraisemblance, Höss avait été torturé par des Britanniques de la 92nd Field Security Section. Mais il fallait une confirmation à cette hypothèse. La confirmation allait venir avec la publication d'un livre anglais contenant le nom du principal tortionnaire (un sergent britannique d'origine juive) et décrivant les circonstances de l'arrestation de R. Höss ainsi que de son interrogatoire au troisième degré.

Le livre est de Rupert Butler. Il a été publié en 1983 (Hamlyn Paperbacks). R. Butler est l'auteur de trois autres ouvrages :The Black Angels, Hand of Steel et Gestapo, publiés chez le même éditeur. Celui qui nous intéresse s'intitule : Legions of Death. Son inspiration est antinazie. R. Butler dit que, pour ce livre, il a fait des recherches auprès de l'Imperial War Museum de Londres, de l'Institute of Contemporary History (Wiener Library) et d'autres institutions aussi prestigieuses. Au début de son livre, il exprime sa gratitude à ces institutions et, par ailleurs, à deux personnes dont l'une est un "juif" du nom de Bernard Clarke "qui captura Rudolf Höss, le commandant d'Auschwitz" et dont il cite quelques fragments d'écrits ou bien de propos enregistrés.

Bernard Clarke n'éprouve aucun remords mais, au contraire, une certaine fierté d'avoir torturé un "nazi". Rupert Butler, lui non plus, n'y voit aucun mal. Ni l'un ni l'autre ne mesurent l'importance de leur révélation. Ils disent que R. Höss a été arrêté le 11 mars 1946 et qu'il a fallu trois jours de torture pour obtenir "une déclaration cohérente". Ils ne se rendent pas compte que cette prétendue "déclaration cohérente" n'est autre que la confession, véritablement folle, qui a été signée par leur victime pantelante le 14 ou le 15 mars 1946 à 2h 30 du matin et qui allait définitivement sceller le sort de R. Höss et marquer à jamais l'histoire du mythe d'Auschwitz, prétendu haut lieu de l'extermination des juifs, en particulier grâce à l'emploi de prétendues chambres à gaz homicides.

Le 11 mars 1946, Bernard Clarke et cinq autres spécialistes du renseignement, en uniforme britannique, de haute taille pour la plupart et l'air menaçant, pénètrent au domicile de Mme Höss et de ses enfants. Les six hommes, nous dit-on, sont tous "entraînés aux techniques les plus sophistiquées des interrogatoires soutenus et sans merci" (p. 235). Clarke se met à crier :

Si vous ne nous dites pas où est [votre mari], nous vous livrerons aux Russes qui vous flanqueront devant un poteau d'exécution et votre fils ira en Sibérie [5].

Mme Höss craque et révèle, dit Clarke, l'emplacement de la ferme où se cache son mari. Elle révèle aussi son faux nom : Franz Lang. Et Bernard Clarke d'ajouter :

Une intimidation appropriée exercée sur le fils et la fille produisit des informations identiques.

Le sergent juif et les cinq autres spécialistes de l'interrogatoire au troisième degré partent alors à la recherche de R. Höss qu'ils surprennent en pleine nuit, couché dans un recoin de la salle servant d'abattoir à la ferme.

Höss poussa un cri à la simple vue des uniformes britanniques. Clarke hurla : "Ton nom ?"

A chaque fois que la réponse était "Franz Lang", Clarke écrasait de son poing la face du prisonnier. Au quatrième coup Höss craqua et reconnut qui il était.

Soudain cet aveu déchaîna l'écoeurement des sergents juifs venus l'arrêter, dont les parents étaient morts à Auschwitz en vertu d'un ordre signé de Höss. Tout là-haut le prisonnier fut arraché de sa couchette et on lui arracha son pyjama. Il fut ensuite traîné nu vers l'une des tables d'abattage et là Clarke crut que coups et cris n'auraient pas de fin.

En fin de compte, l'officier de santé intervint avec insistance auprès du capitaine : "Dites-leur d'arrêter ou c'est un cadavre que vous ramènerez". On jeta sur Höss une couverture et il fut traîné vers la voiture de Clarke où ce dernier lui déversa dans la gorge une bonne rasade de whisky. Höss essayant alors de s'endormir, Clarke lui plongea son stick de commandement sous les paupières et en allemand lui ordonna : "Tiens ouverts tes yeux de cochon, espèce de porc !"

Alors, pour la première fois, Höss débita une justification qu'il allait si souvent répéter : "Je recevais mes ordres de Himmler. Je suis un soldat comme vous. Il fallait obéir aux ordres".

L'équipe fut de retour à Heide vers trois heures du matin. La neige continuait de tourbillonner mais on arracha à Höss sa couverture et il lui fallut traverser complètement nu la cour de la prison jusqu'à sa cellule.

C'est ainsi que Bernard Clarke révèle :

Il y fallut trois jours pour obtenir [de Höss] une déclaration cohérente.

C'est cette déclaration, obtenue dans les conditions que l'on voit par des brutes de la Sécurité militaire britannique et sous l'inspiration du cerveau malade du sergent interprète Bernard Clarke, qui deviendra la première confession de Höss, la confession primordiale répertoriée sous la cote NO-1210. Une fois que le prisonnier torturé eut commencé de parler, Clarke dit qu'il fut impossible de l'arrêter. Et Clarke, pas plus conscient en 1982 ou 1983 qu'en ces jours de 1946 de l'énormité de ce qu'il forçait Höss à confesser, rapporte alors une série d'horreurs fictives présentées ici comme réelles : Höss se mit en effet à raconter comment, ayant mis le feu aux monceaux de cadavres, on recueillait (sic) la graisse qui en coulait pour la reverser sur les cadavres (!). Il évaluait à deux millions le nombre des morts du seul temps où il avait été à Auschwitz (!) ; les tueries atteignaient parfois le nombre de dix mille victimes par jour (!).

Clarke était chargé de la censure des lettres adressées par Höss à sa femme et à ses enfants. Toutes les polices du monde savent que cette autorisation d'écrire à la famille constitue une arme psychologique. Pour faire chanter le prisonnier il suffit parfois de suspendre ou de supprimer cette autorisation. Clarke fait une intéressante remarque sur le contenu des lettres de Höss ; il nous confie :

Parfois le morceau était dur à avaler. Il y avait deux hommes dans cet homme. L'un était brutal et sans égard pour la vie humaine. L'autre était tendre et affectueux [6].

Rupert Butler termine son récit en disant que Höss ne chercha plus à nier ou à échapper à ses responsabilités. Il est de fait qu'au procès de Nuremberg Höss se conduisit avec une "apathie schizoide". L'expression est de l'Américain G. M. Gilbert, le psychologue de la prison chargé de la surveillance psychologique des prisonniers, en relation avec le ministère public américain. On veut bien croire que R. Höss était "scindé en deux" ! Il avait l'air d'une loque parce qu'on en avait fait une loque. "Apathetic", dit Gilbert à la page 229 de son livre (Nuremberg Diary, 1947, Signet Books, 1961) ; "apathetic", répète-t-il à la page suivante ; "schizoid apathy", écrit-il à la page 239.

A la fin de son propre procès, à Cracovie, Höss accueillit la sentence de mort avec une indifférence apparente. Rupert Butler observe à ce propos :

[Höss] s'était fait la remarque que les Alliés avaient reçu des ordres et qu'il n'était absolument pas question que ces ordres ne fussent pas exécutés [7].

On ne saurait mieux dire. R. Höss, à l'instar de milliers d'accusés allemands rendus à la merci de vainqueurs totalement convaincus de leur bon droit, avait vite compris qu'il n'avait pas d'autre choix que d'en passer par la volonté de ces justiciers de l'Ouest ou de l'Est.

Rupert Butler évoque ensuite rapidement le cas de Hans Frank, l'ancien gouverneur de Pologne. Sur le même ton de satisfaction morale, il raconte les circonstances de la capture et le traitement subi :

La célébrité du personnage ne fut d'aucun effet sur les deux GI de couleur qui l'arrêtèrent et firent le nécessaire pour qu'il fût transporté à la prison municipale de Miesbach seulement après avoir été sauvagement battu puis flanqué dans un camion. On lui avait jeté dessus une toile goudronnée pour cacher les traces les plus marquantes du traitement qu'il avait subi ; Frank profita de cette couverture pour s'entailler l'artère du bras gauche. Il n'était évidemment pas question de le laisser s'en tirer si facilement : un officier de santé de l'armée américaine lui sauva la vie et Frank put comparaître devant le Tribunal militaire international de Nuremberg [8].

Hans Frank, on le sait, fut pendu.

Rudolf Höss et Hans Frank ne furent pas les seuls à subir des traitements de ce genre. Parmi les cas les plus célèbres on connaît ceux de Julius Streicher, de Hans Fritzsche, de Franz Ziereis, de Josef Kramer, de Oswald Pohl.

Mais le cas de Höss est, de loin, le plus grave par ses conséquences. Aucun document ne prouve, de la part des Allemands, une politique d'extermination des juifs. Léon Poliakov en convenait dès 1951 :

En ce qui concerne la conception proprement dite du plan d'une extermination totale, les trois ou quatre principaux acteurs se sont suicidés en mai 1945. Aucun document n'est resté, n'a peut-être jamais existé [9].

En l'absence de tout document, les historiens à la Poliakov se sont rabattus principalement sur des confessions douteuses comme celles de Kurt Gerstein ou de Rudolf Höss, non sans modifier les textes à leur convenance.

Bernard Clarke est "aujourd'hui un businessman prospère établi dans le sud de l'Angleterre" (Legions of Death, 1983, p. 235). On peut bien dire que c'est sa voix, et son esprit malade, qui se sont fait entendre à Nuremberg, le 15 avril 1946, quand le procureur Amen donnait lecture, fragment par fragment, à un auditoire stupéfait et bouleversé, de la prétendue confession de R. Höss. Ce jour-là prenait véritablement son envol un mensonge aux dimensions planétaires : le mensonge d'Auschwitz. A l'origine de cette prodigieuse affaire médiatique : quelques sergents juifs de la Sécurité militaire britannique, dont Bernard Clarke, aujourd'hui "businessman prospère établi dans le sud de l'Angleterre [10]".

7 mai 1987

Notes
[1] Voyez Henri Monneray, La Persécution des Juifs dans les pays de l'Est présentée à Nuremberg, Paris, éditions du Centre de documentation juive, 1949, p. 159-62.
[2] IMG, XI, p. 457-61.
[3] Hans Fritzsche, chargé de la radio et de la presse au ministère de l'Éducation et de la Propagande depuis 1938, acquitté à Nuremberg.
[4] Rudolf Höss, Le Commandant d'Auschwitz parle, traduit de l'allemand par Constantin de Grunwald, Julliard, (1959) 1970, p. 248-50.
[5] R. Butler, Legions of Death, p. 235.
[6] Id., p. 238.
[7] Id., p. 238.
[8] Id., p. 238-239.
[9] L. Poliakov, Bréviaire de la haine..., p. 171.
[10] R. Butler, Legions of Death, p. 235.
[11] "Assurément, j'ai signé que j'avais tué 2 millions et demi de juifs. Mais j'aurais tout aussi bien signé qu'il y en avait eu 5 millions. Il y a précisément des méthodes pour obtenir n'importe quel aveu – que ce soit vrai ou non."







More Nazi confessions via torture

"starvation, brutality, and threats of bodily harm",
"so brutal as to be repulsive."

Press reports on the 1949 US Senate subcommittee which was investigating
the circumstance of the trials of Nazis held by the Americans at Dachau.
The committee read a letter from an American journalist, James Bailey, who
was part of a 9 man team which recorded the confessions of the Germans, but
had requested a transfer after 10 weeks. He could no-longer stomach how
confessions were extracted from Germans, "starvation, brutality, and threats
of bodily harm", "so brutal as to be repulsive." The prosecution had made
"a mockery of justice" and had been manufacturing evidence.






The Michigan Daily - Apr 19, 1949 - page 8


February 1949, p. 21f






Les pendus de Nuremberg

 Dans la nuit du 15 au 16 octobre 1946, les dix condamnés à mort du procès de Nuremberg (Göring s’est suicidé quelques heures auparavant) sont pendus. Les exécutions s’échelonnent entre 1 h.15 et 3 h.45. Il s’agit de Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Alfred Jodl, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Wilhelm Keitel, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Alfred Rosenberg, Fritz Sauckel, Arthur Seys-Inquart et Julius Streicher. L’exécution est mal préparée par le bourreau en chef de l’US Army, le sergent John C. Woods et Ribbentrop qui est le premier à monter sur l’échafaud met 17 minutes à mourir. Les onze morts ne reçurent pas de sépulture : dans la journée même, ils furent incinérés et leurs cendres répandues dans l’Isar.

Pour la petite histoire, quatre ans plus tard, le Master Sergeant Woods , le bourreau qui avait procédé aux exécutions, mourait lui-même en essayant une chaise électrique.

« Le vrai fondement du procès de Nuremberg, celui qu’on n’a jamais osé désigner, je crains bien que ce ne soit la peur : c’est le spectacle des ruines, c’est la panique des vainqueurs. Il faut que les autres aient tort. Il le faut, car si, par hasard, ils n’avaient pas été des monstres, de quel poids ne pèseraient pas ces villes détruites et ces milliers de bombes au phosphore ? C’est l’horreur, c’est le désespoir des vainqueurs qui est le vrai motif du procès. Ils se sont voilé le visage devant ce qu’ils étaient forcés de faire et pour se donner du courage, ils ont transformé leurs massacres en croisade. Ils ont inventé a posteriori un droit au massacre au nom du respect de l’humanité. Étant tueurs, ils se sont promus gendarmes. A partir d’un certain chiffre de morts, nous savons que toute guerre devient obligatoirement une guerre du Droit. La victoire n’est donc complète que si, après avoir forcé la citadelle, on force aussi les consciences (…)

L’écroulement de l’Allemagne ne suffisait pas aux vainqueurs. Les Allemands n’étaient pas seulement des vaincus, ils n’étaient pas des vaincus ordinaires. C’est le Mal qui avait été vaincu en eux : on avait à leur apprendre qu’ils étaient des Barbares, qu’ils étaient les Barbares. Ce qui leur arrivait, le dernier degré de la détresse, la désolation comme au jour du déluge, leur pays englouti comme Gomorrhe et eux seuls errants, stupéfaits, au milieu des ruines, comme au lendemain de l’écroulement du monde, on avait à leur apprendre que c’était bien fait comme disent les enfants. C’était une juste punition du ciel. Ils devaient s’assoir eux Allemands, sur leurs ruines et se frapper la poitrine. Car ils avaient été des monstres. Et il est juste que les villes des monstres soient détruites, et aussi les femmes des monstres et leurs petits enfants. Et la radio de tous les peuples du monde, et des millions de voix de tous les horizons du monde, sans exception, sans fausse note, se mirent à expliquer à l’homme assis sur ses ruines pourquoi il avait été un monstre. »
Maurice Bardèche, Nuremberg ou la Terre promise.
"Je ne prends pas la défense de l'Allemagne. Je prends la défense de la vérité. Je ne sais si la vérité existe et même beaucoup de gens font des raisonnements pour me prouver qu'elle n'existe pas. Mais je sais que le mensonge existe, je sais que la
déformation systématique des faits existe. Nous vivons depuis trois ans sur une falsification de l'histoire. Cette falsification est adroite : elle entraîne les imaginations, puis elle s'appuie sur la conspiration des imaginations. On a commencé par dire : voilà tout ce que vous avez souffert, puis on dit : souvenez-vous de ce que vous avez souffert.
On a même inventé [10] une philosophie de cette falsification. Elle consiste à nous
expliquer que ce que nous étions réellement n'a aucune importance, mais que seule compte l'image qu'on se faisait de nous. Il paraît que cette transposition est la seule réalité . Le groupe Rothschild est ainsi promu à l'existence métaphysique.
Moi, je crois stupidement à la vérité. Je crois même qu'elle finit par triompher de tout et même de l'image qu'on fait de nous. Le destin précaire de la falsification inventée par la Résistance nous en a déjà apporté la preuve. Aujourd'hui le bloc est brisé, les couleurs s’écaillent : ces panneaux publicitaires ne durent que quelques saisons. Mais alors si la propagande des démocraties a menti pendant trois ans à notre sujet, si elle a travesti ce que nous avons fait, devons-nous la croire lorsqu'elle nous parle de l’Allemagne ? N'a-t-elle pas falsifié l'histoire de l'occupation comme elle a présenté faussement l'action du gouvernement français ? L'opinion commence à rectifier son  jugement sur l'épuration. Ne devons-nous pas nous demander si la même révision n'est  pas à faire sur la condamnation qui a été [11] portée par les mêmes juges à Nuremberg ?
N'est-il pas honnête, au moins, n'est-il pas nécessaire de poser cette question ? Si l'action
judiciaire qui a frappé des milliers de Français est une imposture, qu'est-ce qui nous prouve que celle qui a condamné des milliers d'Allemands n'en est pas une ? Avons-nous le droit de nous en désintéresser ?
Supporterons-nous que des milliers d'hommes, en ce temps, souffrent et se
révoltent de notre refus de témoigner, de notre lâcheté, de notre fausse commisération ?
Ils repoussent cette camisole de force que nous voulons mettre à leur voix et à leur passé;
ils savent que nos journaux mentent, que nos films mentent, que nos écrivains mentent, ils le savent et ne l'oublieront pas: laisserons-nous tomber sur nous ce regard de mépris qu'ils nous lancent justement? Toute l'histoire de cette guerre est à refaire, nous le savons. Refuserons-nous notre porte à la vérité ?"

 

Maurice BARDÈCHE: Nuremberg ou la Terre Promise

Note de l’Aaargh :
Ce livre de Maurice Bardèche, intitulé Nuremberg ou la terre promise, a été publié à Paris en 1948 aux éditions Les Sept Couleurs (78, Rue De La Tour, Paris XVIe ), il y a donc bientôt un demi-siècle. Il aurait été tiré à 25.000 exemplaires. Au printemps 1952, Maurice Bardèche est condamné, pour ce livre, à un an de prison et 50.000 Francs d'amende; le livre est saisi et interdit à la vente (ce qui ne nous concerne pas puisque nous ne le vendons pas). L'auteur ne passera que quelques semaines en prison. A la suite de cette affaire, Bardèche lance une revue, Défense de l'Occident, qui a publié des textes de Rassinier et de R. Faurisson. Bardèche se range ainsi parmi ceux qui ont permis au révisionnisme de prendre forme et de s'exprimer. Il a donc joué un rôle qui justifie sa présence dans nos archives. Mais le révisionnisme provient d'une réflexion sur la réalité et le statut de l'idéologie qui préside aux représentations de l'histoire; il est totalement autonome et ne doit à ses vecteurs — ceux qui, à droite comme à gauche, l'ont publié — que la gratitude due à des services rendus. Il est intellectuellement indépendant des tendances politiques de ceux qui s'emparent de lui ou de ceux qui le combattent. C'est pourquoi il prospère malgré les interdits dérisoires, les censures brouillonnes, les assimilations scandaleuses et les condamnations en chaire.





La question des crimes de guerre et des camps de concentration:


Traitement des prisonniers chez les Alliés vs chez les N.S.

Les USA ont été sévèrement critiqués pour leur traitement des Japonais dans les camps de concentration mal chauffés, dans de mauvaises conditions sanitaires, où les Japonais mouraient par milliers. L'Allemagne n'a reçu que des éloges de la part des inspecteurs de la Croix-Rouge.

Rapport en trois volumes du Comité International de la Croix Rouge sur ses activités pendant la Deuxième Guerre Mondiale, Genève, 1948.

Ce compte rendu complet provenant d'une source entièrement neutre comprend et étend les constatations de deux ouvrages précédents: Documents sur l'activité du CICR en faveur des civils détenus dans les camps de concentration en Allemagne 1939-1945 (Genève, 1946) et Inter Arma Caritas: the Work of the CICR during the Second World War (Genève, 1947). Le groupe d'auteurs, dirigé par Frédéric Siordet, explique au début du Rapport qu'il s'est inspiré d'une stricte neutralité politique, dans la tradition de la Croix Rouge, et c'est en cela que réside sa grande valeur.

Le CICR réussit à faire appliquer la convention militaire de Genève de 1929 pour pouvoir visiter les détenus civils des camps allemands d'Europe Centrale et d'Europe Occidentale. Par contre, il lui fut impossible d'aller faire une enquête en Union Soviétique puisque ce pays n'avait pas ratifié la Convention. Les millions de prisonniers civils et militaires de l'Union Soviétique dont les conditions de vie étaient, comme chacun sait, de loin les plus pénibles de toutes, étaient complètement coupés de tout contact ou contrôle international.

Le Rapport de la Croix Rouge est précieux parce qu'il fait d'abord la lumière sur les circonstances légitimes de la détention des Juifs dans des camps de concentration, c'est-à-dire comme citoyens d'un pays ennemi. En décrivant les deux catégories de civils internés, le Rapport qualifie le deuxième type de "civils déportés pour des raisons administratives (en allemand: Schutzhäftlinge = en détention préventive) qui avaient été arrêtés pour des motifs politiques ou raciaux parce que leur présence était considérée comme un danger en puissance pour l'Etat ou pour les troupes d'occupation" (Vol.III, p.73). Le Rapport poursuit: "Ces personnes étaient assimilées aux personnes arrêtées ou emprisonnées en vertu du droit commun pour des raisons de sécurité" (p.74). Le Rapport reconnaît que les Allemands furent d'abord peu disposés à permettre à la Croix Rouge d'aller surveiller des personnes détenues pour la sécurité de l'Etat, mais qu'à partir du 2· semestre de 1942, le CICR obtint des concessions importantes de l'Allemagne. On l'autorisa à distribuer des colis de vivres dans les grands camps de concentration à partir du mois d'août 1942, et à partir de février 1943, cette concession fut étendue à tous les autres camps et à toutes les autres prisons" (Vol.III, p.78). Le CICR établit bientôt le contact avec les commandants des camps et entama un programme d'envoi de vivres qui fonctionna jusqu'aux derniers mois de la guerre en 1945 ainsi qu'en témoignent des lettres de remerciement envoyées par milliers par des Juifs détenus dans les camps.

Le Rapport signale que "9.000 colis étaient emballés chaque jour. A partir de l'automne de 1943 jusqu'à mai 1945, 1.112.000 colis environ, représentant un poids total de 4.500 tonnes, furent envoyés aux camps de concentration" (Vol.III, p.80). En plus des colis de vivres, on expédia des colis de vêtements et de produits pharmaceutiques. "Des colis furent envoyés à Dachau, Buchenwald, Sangerhausen, Sachsenhausen, Oranienburg, Flossenburg, Labdsberg-am-Lech, Floha, Ravensbrück, Hamburg-Neuengamme, Mauthausen, Theresienstadt, Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, à des camps situes près de Vienne et dans le centre et le sud de l'Allemagne. Ils furent destinés surtout à des Juifs belges, hollandais, français. grecs, italiens, norvégiens, polonais et apatrides" (Vol.III, p.83). Au cours des années de guerre, "le Comité put faire transporter et distribuer des marchandises valant plus de 20 millions de francs suisses collectés par des organisations juives de bienfaisance dans le monde entier, spécialement par le comité de New York American Joint Distribution Committee" (Vol. I, p.644). Jusqu'à l'entrée en guerre des Etats-Unis, ce comité de New York fut autorisé par les Allemands à avoir ses bureaux à Berlin. Le CICR se plaint de ce que son action de grande envergure d'aide aux détenus juifs fut entravée non pas par les Allemands, mais par le blocus étroit de l'Europe par les Alliés. La Croix Rouge acheta la majeure partie des vivres en Roumanie, en Hongrie et en Slovaquie. Le CICR a des éloges particuliers pour les conditions de vie libérales qui régnaient à Theresienstadt jusqu'aux dernières visites des délégués du Comité en avril 1945. Ce camp, "où vivaient environ 40.000 Juifs déportés de divers pays, était un ghetto relativement privilégié" (Vol.III, p.75). Suivant le Rapport, "les délégués purent visiter le camp de Theresienstadt (Terezin) ou vivaient exclusivement des Juifs et ou régnaient des conditions spéciales. D'après les renseignements recueillis par le Comité, ce camp avait été créé à titre expérimental par certains dirigeants du Reich qui voulaient donner aux Juifs la possibilité de vivre en commun dans une ville administrée par eux-mêmes et possédant une autonomie presque complète... deux délégués purent visiter le camp le 6 avril 1945. Ils confirmèrent l'impression favorable de leur première visite" (Vol.I, p.642).

Le CICR loue aussi le régime d'Ion Antonescu de la Roumanie fasciste où le Comité put apporter une aide spéciale à 183.000 Juifs roumaine jusqu'à l'occupation du pays par les troupes soviétiques... qui signifia la fin de cette action humanitaire, et le CICR se plaint amèrement de n'avoir jamais réussi à envoyer quoi que ce soit en Union Soviétique" (Vol.I, p.62). Ce fut le cas aussi pour plusieurs camps de concentration allemands après leur "libération" par l'Armée Rouge. Le CICR reçut une correspondance volumineuse d'Auschwitz, jusqu'au moment de l'occupation soviétique. Une partie des détenus fut évacuée vers l'Ouest, mais les efforts de la Croix Rouge pour envoyer des colis aux détenus restés à Auschwitz occupé par l'Armée Rouge furent vains. Cependant, des colis de vivres furent encore envoyés à des anciens détenus d'Auschwitz transférés à l'Ouest dans des camps tels que Buchenwald et Oranienburg.

Un des aspects les plus importants du Rapport de la Croix Rouge est qu'il fait la lumière sur la véritable cause des nombreux décès dans les camps vers la fin de la guerre: "Dans les conditions chaotiques de l'Allemagne après l'invasion, pendant les derniers mois de la guerre, plus aucun ravitaillement n'arrivait dans les camps de concentration et il y eut de plus en plus de détenus qui moururent d'épuisement. Alarmé par cette situation, le gouvernement allemand lui-même en informa finalement le CICR le 1er février 1945. En mars 1945, des entretiens du Président du CICR avec Kaltenbrunner, général de la SS, eurent des résultats encore plus décisifs. Les colis de vivres purent désormais être distribués par le CICR et un délégué de la Croix Rouge fut autorisé à séjourner dans chaque camp..." (Vol.III, p.83). Il est donc évident que les autorités allemandes faisaient tout leur possible pour remédier à cette situation désastreuse. Le Croix Rouge précise que le ravitaillement des camps fut interrompu à cause des attaques de l'aviation alliée sur toutes les voies de communication, et dans l'intérêt des détenus juifs, la Croix Rouge protesta le 15 mars 1944 contre "la guerre aérienne barbare des Alliés" (Inter Arma Caritas, p.78). Le 2 octobre 1944, le CICR avertit le Foreign Office de l'effondrement imminent du système de transport allemand en déclarant qu'il entraînerait inévitablement la famine pour tous ceux qui se trouvaient en Allemagne à l'époque.

L'examen de ce volumineux Rapport en trois volumes nous montre -- et il importe de le souligner -- que les délégués de la Croix Rouge Internationale n'ont trouvé aucune preuve, dans les camps de concentration des pays européens occupés par l'Allemagne, d'une politique délibérée d'extermination des Juifs. Il n'est fait mention nulle part, dans les 1.600 pages du Rapport, d'une chose telle qu'une chambre à gaz. Le rapport reconnaît que les Juifs, comme beaucoup d'autres peuples pendant la guerre, ont subi les rigueurs de la vie dans les camps et ont souffert de privation, mais le silence complet du rapport sur une extermination voulue et planifiée réfute amplement la légende des Six Millions. Comme les délégués du Vatican avec qui elle a travaillé, la Croix Rouge Internationale estime qu'il lui était impossible d'adhérer à la campagne irresponsable menée partout à grand fracas pour accuser l'Allemagne nazie d'avoir appliqué une politique de génocide.

Quant au taux réel de la mortalité, le Rapport explique qu'on utilisa les services de la plupart des médecins juifs des camps pour lutter contre le typhus sur le front de l'Est, de sorte que ces médecins n'étaient pas dans les camps quand les épidémies de typhus s'y déclarèrent en 1945 (Vol. I, p.204 ff). On prétend souvent, par ailleurs, que des exécutions en masse eurent lieu dans des chambres à gaz habilement maquillées en salles de douches. Le Rapport réduit aussi à néant cette allégation.

"Les délégués visitèrent non seulement les lavabos, mais aussi les installations de bain, les douches et la blanchisserie. Ils durent intervenir souvent pour faire améliorer les appareils et pour les faire réparer ou agrandir" (Vol. III, p.594).

Le Volume III du Rapport de la Croix Rouge, chapitre 3 (I. Population civile juive) traite de "l'aide apportée aux Juifs de la population libre"; ce chapitre montre clairement que tous les Juifs d'Europe ne furent certainement pas internés mais restèrent parmi la population civile en étant soumis à certaines restrictions. Ceci contredit nettement le soi-disant "perfectionnisme" du prétendu "programme d'extermination", et ce qui est affirmé dans les faux mémoires de Hoess, à savoir qu'Eichmann était obsédé par l'idée d'arrêter "absolument tous les Juifs qu'il pourrait attraper." En Slovaquie, par exemple, où l'adjoint d'Eichmann, Dieter Wisliceny, exerçait ses fonctions, le Rapport spécifie qu'"une grande partie de la minorité juive fut autorisée à rester dans le pays, et à certaines périodes, la Slovaquie fut considérée comme un hâvre relatif pour les Juifs, spécialement pour ceux qui venaient de Pologne. Les Juifs qui restèrent en Slovaquie semblent avoir été relativement en sûreté jusqu'à la fin du mois d'août 1944, quand il se produisit un soulèvement contre les troupes allemandes. Il est vrai que la loi du 15 mai 1942 avait entraîné l'internement de plusieurs milliers de Juifs, mais on les mit dans des camps où les conditions de nourriture et de logement étaient tolérables et où les détenus pouvaient travailler en étant payés dans des conditions presque égales à celles de l'extérieur" (Vol.I, p.646).

Parmi les 3 millions de Juifs à peu près qui se trouvaient en Europe pendant la guerre (comment en exterminer 6 dans ce cas?), il y en eut non seulement pas mal qui ne furent pas détenus, mais une partie d'entre eux put continuer à émigrer pendant toute la guerre, généralement via la Hongrie, la Roumanie et la Turquie. Ironie du sort, cette émigration, à partir des territoires occupés par les Allemands, fut facilitée aussi par le Reich, comme dans le cas des Juifs polonais arrivés en France avant l'occupation de ce pays. "Les Juifs de Pologne qui avaient obtenu, quand ils étaient en France, des permis d'entrée aux Etats-Unis, furent considérés comme des citoyens américains par les autorités allemandes d'occupation qui acceptèrent ultérieurement de reconnaître la validité d'environ trois mille passeports remis à des Juifs par des consulats de pays d'Amérique Latine" (Vol.I, p.645). Comme futurs citoyens américains, ces Juifs furent rassemblés au camp de Vittel réservé aux citoyens américains. L'émigration de Juifs européens à partir de la Hongrie, en particulier, se poursuivit pendant la guerre, sans entraves des autorités allemandes. "Jusqu'au mois de mars 1944", dit le Rapport de la Croix Rouge, (des Juifs qui avaient le privilège de posséder des visas pour la Palestine furent autorisés à quitter la Hongrie" (Vol.I, p.648). Même après le remplacement du gouvernement Horthy en 1944 (il voulait conclure un armistice séparé avec l'Union Soviétique) par un gouvernement qui dépendait davantage de l'autorité allemande, l'émigration de Juifs continua. Le Comité obtint les promesses de la Grande-Bretagne et des Etats-Unis "d'aider par tous les moyens l'émigration des Juifs à partir de la Hongrie", et le CICR reçut un message du gouvernement américain: "Le gouvernement des Etats-Unis répète de façon précise qu'il fera le nécessaire pour prendre soin de tous les Juifs qui sont autorisés à partir dans les circonstances actuelles" (Vol.I, p.649).
http://vho.org/Intro/F/index.html






LE TRIBUNAL DE NUREMBERG POUR LES CRIMES DE GUERRE : LA PLUS GRANDE FARCE JURIDIQUE DE L’HISTOIRE

Par Petras Stankeras
14 novembre 2010

Traduction de l'article de l'historien lituanien Petras Stankeras intitulé "Lituanie: Un historien ne croit pas aux chambres à gaz".

Comme on le sait, cet historien, docteur en sciences humaines et haut fonctionnaire employé au ministère de l'Intérieur, avait publié, dès le 8 novembre 2010 dans l'édition papier du principal hebdomadaire d'information de Lituanie "Veidas", un article intitulé "Le Tribunal de Nuremberg pour les crimes de guerre: la plus grande farce judiciaire de l’histoire". L'article avait été mis en ligne le 14 novembre et, le 23, l'alerte était donnée contre son auteur accusé de nier l'Holocauste; devant les protestations de 7 ambassadeurs, M. Stankeras avait demandé à être libéré de ses fonctions. (...)

Source:
http://www.veidas.lt/visuomene/istorija/niurnbergo-karo-nusikaltimu-tribunolas-–-didziausias-juridinis-farsas-istorijoje


LE TRIBUNAL DE NUREMBERG POUR LES CRIMES DE GUERRE : LA PLUS GRANDE FARCE JURIDIQUE DE L’HISTOIRE

Par Petras Stankeras
14 novembre 2010


Il y a 65 ans, le 20 novembre 1945, commença officiellement, au Palais de justice de Nuremberg, la première audience du Tribunal militaire international. Le procès de Nuremberg n’avait pas de précédent dans l’histoire de l’humanité : pour la première fois dans la jurisprudence universelle, ce n’étaient pas des criminels de guerre qu’on jugeait individuellement, mais tout un gouvernement.

Dès le 13 janvier 1942 fut adoptée la déclaration de Londres, dans laquelle les gouvernements de pays en guerre contre l’Allemagne exprimaient leur ferme résolution de mettre en œuvre tous les moyens pour que les criminels de guerre soient jugés. Au département américain de la guerre fut formulée l’idée d’un tribunal pour les criminels de guerre. Il fut proposé de qualifier le régime nazi d’organisation criminelle, la provocation et la conduite d’une guerre d’agression, d’acte criminel.

Le 26 juin1945 commença à Londres une conférence internationale dont le résultat, l’Accord de Londres, devint le fondement juridique du Tribunal de Nuremberg. On créa, sur une base paritaire, un tribunal militaire international formé de représentants de l’URSS, des Etats-Unis, de l’Angleterre et de la France, et on prépara des statuts et un règlement de travail. Les accusations furent divisées en trois catégories : crimes contre la paix, crimes de guerre, crimes contre l’humanité.

Dresser la liste des accusés prit un peu de temps : les Américains avaient inscrit 72 personnes sur leur liste, et la liste russe comptait une centaine de noms. On décida finalement que le procès ne devrait pas concerner plus de 24 personnes.

C’est le Palais de justice de Nuremberg qu’il fut choisi d’aménager en vue des audiences du tribunal. Le bâtiment était entouré par des rangées de gardes, la première, formée de policiers allemands, et derrière, en demi-cercle, une rangée de policiers militaires américains. A ce propos : les criminels de guerre emprisonnés furent gardés par des Lituaniens aussi, servant dans des unités étrangères.

Le procès commença officiellement le 20 novembre 1945. Les rédactions de journaux et de revues du monde entier avaient fait accréditer 300 journalistes, 100 photographes ou opérateurs de prise de vue cinématographique, 10 artistes-peintres.

La RSS de Lituanie était représentée à Nuremberg par l’écrivain Jonas Simkus. Il envoyait ses articles à la Tiesa [1], rédigeait scrupuleusement un journal de Nuremberg qui est aujourd’hui conservé à l’Institut pour la langue et la littérature lituaniennes.

Quelque chose qui nous intéresse : le 13 décembre 1945, le procureur américain rendit public un rapport de 1941 sur l’action des groupes opérationnels SS sur le territoire lituanien. Furent transmis au tribunal un matériau accusateur appelé « Le fort de la mort à Kaunas », ainsi que les documents « Les hitlériens ont tenté d’anéantir la culture lituanienne » et « Le massacre massif de ressortissants soviétiques dans la localité de Paner ».

La justice des vainqueurs

Nous rappellerons que les vainqueurs officièrent comme procureurs, juges et bourreaux. Le Tribunal de Nuremberg n’avait aucune autre compétence que celle reçue par le droit du vainqueur. Les accusateurs ne recherchaient que des documents à charge, et ils les utilisaient de manière tendancieuse. Ils cachèrent consciencieusement à la défense les documents attestant l’innocence des accusés. Les dirigeants de l’Allemagne étaient inculpés de crimes en vertu de lois fabriquées tant bien que mal après la commission de ces crimes. C’est pourquoi, au procès de Nuremberg, où des criminels en jugeaient d’autres, il ne fut pas aisé de décider ce qui serait tenu pour crime de guerre. On trouva une solution simple : telle chose a été faite par les gouvernements de l’ « Axe », mais pas par nous, c’est donc une action inhumaine, brutale et condamnable. L’Allemagne, à genoux, affamée, en ruines, était impuissante à contredire, à s’opposer à l’arbitraire des Etats occupants.

Dans leurs déclarations, les dirigeants du Troisième Reich s’appuyèrent sur les arguments de défense suivants :

– L’Allemagne, lorsqu’elle décidait de la guerre et de la paix, était un Etat souverain ; aussi, nul étranger ne peut juger pour ces faits, dans un tribunal, la direction politique du pays.

– Nul ne peut être poursuivi en vertu de lois qui n’étaient pas en vigueur au moment de la commission du crime. A cet argument, le tribunal répliqua qu’il avait codifié des principes de droit international qui existaient depuis longtemps.

– Ils n’avaient fait qu’exécuter les lois. Cet argument aussi fut contesté en vertu des principes de Nuremberg.

– Ils n’avaient pas su ce qui se passait. Mais le tribunal ne voulut pas croire que les chefs de l’Allemagne eussent pu n’être pas au courant de presque 200 camps de concentration et du massacre de millions de gens en Europe de l’Est.

– Ils sont justifiés par le fait que les vainqueurs ont eux aussi commis des crimes de guerre. Cependant le tribunal n’examina que les accusations présentées par les procureurs.

L’hypocrisie des acteurs du tribunal

Certains détails du mystère [2] de Nuremberg stupéfient littéralement par la cynique hypocrisie des acteurs du tribunal. En plus de la délégation soviétique officielle, la commission gouvernementale pour l’organisation du Tribunal de Nuremberg, conduite par A. Vychinski, participa elle aussi au travail du tribunal ; les procès-verbaux de ses sessions dévoilent les cuisines malpropres du tribunal. Il apparaît qu’entrait dans la compétence de la commission d’écarter du tribunal les questions que, selon les idéologues soviétiques, il n’était pas permis d’y examiner.

J. Staline obtint qu’au Tribunal de Nuremberg les questions suivantes ne soient pas examinées en audience publique :

1. le point de vue de l’URSS sur le Traité de Versailles ;
2. le pacte de non-agression de 1939 entre l’URSS et l’Allemagne ;
3. les séjours de V. Molotov à Berlin, les séjours de J. Ribbentrop à Moscou ;
4. le régime politique et social de l’URSS ;
5. les républiques soviétiques baltes ;
6. l’accord de l’URSS et de l’Allemagne en vue du transfert en Allemagne des habitants allemands de la Lituanie, de la Lettonie et de l’Estonie ;
7. la politique étrangère de l’URSS, les questions concernant les Détroits et les revendications territoriales avancées par l’URSS ;
8. la question des Balkans ;
9. les rapports de l’URSS et de la Pologne.

En revanche, Staline exigea que soit impérativement examiné un sujet aussi délicat que le massacre de Katyn, au titre de « preuve de la bestialité de la Wehrmacht ». La responsabilité allemande pour la liquidation de milliers d’officiers polonais dans la forêt de Katyn fut « prouvée » au moyen du document de Nuremberg URSS-54. Et ce n’est qu’en 1990 que le gouvernement de l’URSS reconnut que le massacre de Katyn avait été organisé non par les Allemands, ainsi qu’il avait été « prouvé » au procès de Nuremberg, mais par la police secrète soviétique.

Rien sans doute ne fait voir de façon aussi nette le caractère clairement inéquitable de l’enquête judiciaire à Nuremberg, que la façon dont fut traité R. Hess, ancien suppléant d’A. Hitler. Il fut condamné à la prison à vie, bien qu’il ait été, parmi les dirigeants d’Etats ayant pris part à la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, le seul à risquer sa vie en entreprenant une tentative dangereuse, mais infructueuse, de réconcilier les deux parties belligérantes. Il arriva en Angleterre au printemps 1941 comme envoyé de paix. Aux audiences du tribunal, aucun crime ne fut prouvé contre lui.

Est également important le fait qu’au procès de Nuremberg reçut un fondement juridique la légende des six millions de Juifs assassinés, bien qu’en vérité le tribunal n’ait pas possédé un seul document signé par Hitler au sujet de l’anéantissement des Juifs (ce document, s’il a existé, personne jusqu’à nos jours ne l’a trouvé, bien qu’ait été promise jusqu’à une prime d’un million de dollars).

Les sentences… au bout d’un an

Pendant toute la durée du procès de Nuremberg pour les crimes de guerre, le tribunal organisa 403 audiences qui durèrent au total 1100 heures. Les procès-verbaux du procès de Nuremberg remplissent 16 000 pages ; on utilisa 5 millions de feuilles de papier, pour un poids de 200 tonnes.

Les accusateurs présentèrent 2630 documents, les défenseurs 2700. Pendant le procès, ne furent entendus que 240 témoins, ce qui est peu, en fait, pour un tribunal de cette envergure. Il est vrai que le tribunal accepta 300 000 « témoignages écrits » pour appuyer l’accusation. Furent impressionnés 27 000 mètres de pellicule cinématographique sonore, 7000 pellicules photographiques.

Les 30 septembre et 1er octobre 1946, les sentences furent prononcées. Onze accusés étaient condamnés à la peine de mort par pendaison, trois à la prison à vie, quatre à des peines de prison de différentes durées, trois acquittés.

Quatre jours furent donnés à tous les condamnés pour faire une demande de grâce. E. Raeder demanda la commutation de l’emprisonnement à vie en peine de mort. H. Goering, A. Jodl et W. Keitel demandèrent que la pendaison soit commuée en fusillade. Toutes les demandes furent rejetées.

L’exécution des sentences de mort fut confiée à du personnel de l’armée américaine. Le 16 octobre, se réunirent dans la salle de sport de la prison les représentants des Etats organisateurs du tribunal : des militaires, deux témoins allemands, des journalistes, des prêtres, des médecins, en tout 42 personnes.

Des soldats introduisirent J. Ribbentrop, blême de peur. Les gardes traînèrent littéralement jusqu’à la potence l’ex-ministre du Reich, qui avait perdu toute force. Il put à peine prononcer son nom. Les gardes lièrent les jambes du condamné, et le sergent américain K. Wood jeta un sac noir sur sa tête, passa autour de sa gorge le nœud coulant. K. Wood ne cachait pas sa satisfaction d’être devenu un bourreau historique : J. Ribbentrop était son 348e pendu.

Toutes les 20 minutes montait à l’échafaud un nouveau condamné, suivant le même cérémonial. Les condamnés se montrèrent assez vivants : J. Ribbentrop, pendant 10 minutes, ne parvint pas à quitter la vie, A. Jodl pendant 18 minutes, W. Keitel pendant 24 minutes. L’exécution dura 103 minutes, et ainsi s’acheva le plus long procès international dans l’histoire de l’humanité. Les corps des pendus furent photographiés, transportés à Munich et brûlés au crématorium ; les cendres furent répandues dans l’Isar.

D’une manière générale, on peut affirmer que le procès de Nuremberg est une chronique, dans laquelle les historiens peuvent chercher la vérité. Viendra un temps où chaque chose sera à sa place, où les passions s’éteindront, où la vengeance et la haine auront satisfait leur soif.

[1] Autrement dit la « Vérité », organe du PC lituanien (NdT)
[2] Le mot lituanien « misterija » ayant, entre autres, tous les sens du mot français mystère (rite religieux secret, drame biblique, chose incompréhensible, etc.), l’ambiguïté de la traduction est dans l’original (NdT).




Lithuanian historian Petras Stankeras and the Talmudic inquisition http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2010/11/lithuanian-historian-petras-stankeras.html

Petras Stankeras : Nuremberg "a fourni une base légale à la légende des six millions de Juifs soi-disant assassinés".



 Petras Stankeras, comme de plus en plus d'historiens et scientifiques à travers le monde, a contesté le dogme de l’holocauste des juifs dans un article consacré au tribunal de Nuremberg où les Alliés, vainqueurs, avaient jugé en toute hate les hauts responsables de l’Allemagne nationale-socialiste à l’issue de la Seconde Guerre mondiale.

Selon Petras Stankeras, comme pour l'ensemble des historiens révisionistes, ce procès "a fourni une base légale à la légende des six millions de Juifs soi-disant assassinés".


Les organisations juives ont, comme à leur habitude, immédiatement porté plainte afin d'interdire tout débat sur le sujet.
Le parquet lituanien a été forcé à ouvrir une enquête sur l’historien Petras Stankeras sous la pression de quelques ambassadeurs européens oeuvrant conjointement avec des associations juives. Ceux ci se sont en effet crus obligés de s'associer à cette chasse aux sorcières en faisant publier une lettre par l’agence balte de presse BNS. Il s'agit des ambassadeurs de Grande-Bretagne, d’Estonie, de Finlande, de France, de Norvège, de Suède et des Pays-Bas !
Honte à eux !

Et pour avoir osé discuter du dogme, pour avoir mis en danger la version officielle de l'holocauste des juifs, qu'on suppose donc fragile qu'elle ne puisse supporter aucune discussion, Petras Stankeras a été obligé de démissionner jeudi dernier de son poste dans l’administration publique.
La revue Veidas qui avait publié l’article de l'historien a même été obligée de s'en excuser dans son édition de lundi, et de se défendre d'intentions "antisémites", antijuives, ce qui laisse donc à penser que chercher la vérité serait antijuif !

Mieux encore, ces "diplomates" ont eu le culot de reprocher aux autorités lituaniennes de ne pas avoir réagi rapidement !

Le manque d'enthousiasme de la Lituanie s'explique par le fait que son peuple a beaucoup souffert pendant la période judéo-bolchévique, et s'est considéré comme libéré de ce poison à l'arrivée des troupes allemandes.

Alors, tout le monde constate une fois de plus l'obsession juive à censurer l'histoire : Pourquoi ?
La vérité a-elle besoin qu'on interdise de chercher la vérité ?

Tout le monde veut un débat loyal et honnète sur cet holocauste des juifs sauf eux !
Pourquoi ?

Source: Propagandes.info





Saturday, October 31, 2009

Private letter from Thomas Dodd, former US Senator and top American Nuremberg prosecutor: 75% of staff lawyers at Nuremberg are Jewish

http://furtherglory.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/thomas-dodd-shrunken-head.jpg
Thomas Dodd With Shrunken Head Exhibit, 1946
Connecticut’s Senator Christopher Dodd presents history close up in book about his father

Sunday, September 30, 2007
M. Charles Bakst
The Providence Journal

[...]

Consider these Sept. 25, 1945, observations from Tom Dodd, who would emerge as second in command on the American prosecution team:

You know how I have despised anti-Semitism. You know how strongly I feel toward those who preach intolerance of any kind. With that knowledge — you will understand when I tell you that this staff is about seventy-five percent Jewish. Now my point is that the Jews should stay away from this trial — for their own sake. For — mark this well — the charge ‘a war for the Jews’ is still being made and in the post-war years it will be made again and again. The too large percentage of Jewish men and women here will be cited as proof of this charge. Sometimes it seems that the Jews will never learn about these things. They seem intent on bringing new difficulties down on their own heads. I do not like to write about this matter —it is distasteful to me — but I am disturbed about it. They are pushing and crowding and competing with each other and with everyone else.”
Note that this admission is coming from someone who is sympathetic to the Jews and opposes "anti-semitism."




Just like the fiasco at Versailles after the first world war, the Nuremberg trials were controlled by powerful jews and jewish organisations.

Indicative of the largely political nature of the Nuremberg process was the important Jewish role in organizing these trials. Nahum Goldmann, one-time president of both the World Jewish Congress and the World Zionist Organization, reported in his memoir that the Nuremberg Tribunal was the brain-child of World Jewish Congress officials. Only after persistent effort were WJC officials able to persuade Allied leaders to accept the idea, he added. (note 8)


8. Nahum Goldmann, The Jewish Paradox (New York: 1978), p. 122.; N. Goldmann, The Autobiography of Nahum Goldmann (New York: 1969), pp. 216-217.; WJC official Rabbi Maurice Perlzweig claimed in 1949 that "it was the WJC which had secured the holding of the Nuremberg Trials ..." See: "W.J.C. Claims: The Nuremberg Trials," Jewish Chronicle (London), Dec. 16, 1949, p. 17. See also confirmatory letter by Zelmanovits in: Jewish Chronicle, Dec. 30, 1949, p. 16. Note also: Milton R. Konvitz, "Will Nuremberg Serve Justice?," Commentary (New York), Vol. I, No. 3, January 1946, p. 11.

The World Jewish Congress also played an important but less obvious role in the day to day proceedings. Above all, the powerful but secretive organization made sure that Germany's persecution of the Jews was a primary focus of the trials, and that the defendants were punished for their involvement in that process. (note 9)


9. World Jewish Congress, Unity in Dispersion (New York: WJC, 1948), pp. 141, 264, 266, 267.

Two Jewish officers in the US Army -- Lieutenant Colonel Murray Bernays and Colonel David "Mickey" Marcus -- played key roles in the Nuremberg enterprise. In the words of historian Robert Conot, Bernays was "the guiding spirit leading the way to Nuremberg." Bernays, a successful New York attorney, persuaded US War Secretary Henry Stimson and others to accept the idea of putting the defeated German leaders on trial. (note 10)


10. Robert E. Conot, Justice at Nuremberg (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), pp. 10-13; Bradley F. Smith, Reaching Judgment at Nuremberg (New York: Basic, 1977), pp. 26-33. Tom Bower, Blind Eye to Murder (London: 1983), pp. 116 f. On the other hand, American-Jewish newspaper publisher Joseph Pulitzer did not favor such trials. In May 1945 he urged that 1.5 million leading Germans should be simply be summarily shot. The New York Times, May 23, 1945, p. 11

Marcus, a fervent Zionist, became the "number three man in making American policy" in occupied Germany. As chief of the US government's War Crimes Branch in 1946 and 1947, he selected almost all of the judges, prosecutors and lawyers for the Nuremberg NMT Trials. (He later became a commander of Zionist "Haganah" military forces in Palestine.) (note 11)


11. Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century (IHR, 1983), pp. 27-30, 100. Sources cited: Ted Berkman, Cast a Giant Shadow (1962); "War Crimes" article written by Marcus in Britannica Book of the Year, 1947, pp. 819-21; Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 11, p. 945; Saturday Evening Post, Dec. 4, 1948, p. 179. See also: R. Conot, Justice at Nuremberg (1983), p. 11.

Some of the Americans who participated in the Nuremberg trials became disillusioned with the entire business. One of the few to make public his feelings was Charles F. Wennerstrum, an Iowa Supreme Court justice who served as presiding judge in the Nuremberg trial of German generals. "If I had known seven months ago what I know today, I would never have come here," he declared immediately after sentences were pronounced. "The high ideals announced as the motives for creating these tribunals have not been evident," he added. (note 12)


12. Hal Foust, "Nazi Trial Judge Rips 'Injustice'," Chicago Tribune, Feb. 23, 1948, pp. 1, 2.


Wennerstrum cautiously referred to the extensive Jewish involvement in the Nuremberg process. "The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome ... Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were imbedded in Europe's hatreds and prejudices." He criticized the one-sided handling of evidence. "Most of the evidence in the trials was documentary, selected from the large tonnage of captured records. The selection was made by the prosecution. The defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case." He concluded that "the trials were to have convinced the Germans of the guilt of their leaders. They convinced the Germans merely that their leaders lost the war to tough conquerors." Wennerstrum left Nuremberg "with a feeling that justice has been denied."

In Congress, US Representative Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin declared: "The Nuremberg trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history ... The Nuremberg farce represents a revenge policy at its worst." (note 14)


14. Congressional Record -- Appendix, Vol. 95, Sec. 14, (June 15, 1949), p. A 3741.


Another Congressman, John Rankin of Mississippi, stated: "As a representative of the American people I desire to say that what is taking place in Nuremberg, Germany, is a disgrace to the United States... A racial minority, two and a half years after the war closed, are in Nuremberg not only hanging German soldiers but trying German businessmen in the name of the United States." (note 15)

15. Congressional Record -- House, Vol. 93, Sec. 9, (Nov. 28, 1947), p. 10938. Also quoted in: W. Bosch, Judgment on Nuremberg (1970), p. 83.


The Nuremberg Trials (part 1)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2319/2097201448_7db5efdd80.jpg

Letters From Nuremberg - My Father's Narrative of a Quest for Justice by Senator Christopher J. Dodd with Larry Bloom.

I was pretty excited when this book came in for me at the library. Chris Dodd's father, Thomas Dodd was one of the lead prosecuters at the Nuremberg Trials, along with Robert Jackson, the chief prosecuter for the United States. The book is a series of letters that Tom Dodd wrote home to his wife. The letters are touching but get old after awhile. I was hoping for more insight into the trials and the defendants. In that regard the book was lacking.
Some interesting things that did come through were Dodd's observations of Germany shortly after the war, the utter destruction of German cities, the starvation of its people, and the pillaging of Germany by the Russians.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/45693831@N00/2097201448/





http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/Nuremberg/Thomas_Dodd_ltr.html


Thomas J. Dodd, Nuremberg prosecutor
Nuremberg chief prosecutor Thomas J. Dodd wrote privately that the overly Jewish staffing of the prosecution team would make people say WW2 had been fought for their benefit alone

SENATOR Christopher J. Dodd, running for U.S. president, is out with a book. But it's not a conventional candidate biography or blueprint for change.
It's about the Connecticut Democrat's late father, Thomas J. Dodd (above), who preceded him in the Senate. In fact, most of it was written by his father -- and it is fascinating.
The book, which the senator put together with the assistance of Larry Bloom, is Letters from Nuremberg: My Father's Narrative of a Quest for Justice.
The senior Dodd wrote the letters in 1945-'46 to his wife, Grace, back home in Connecticut, while he was abroad, mostly in Germany, as a prosecutor in the Allies' war crimes trial of 22 top Nazis, including Hermann Göring, Joachim von Ribbentrop and Albert Speer. (All but three were convicted; 12 were sentenced to hang.)
Consider these Sept. 25, 1945, observations from Tom Dodd, who would emerge as second in command on the American prosecution team:

"You know how I have despised anti-Semitism. You know how strongly I feel toward those who preach intolerance of any kind. With that knowledge -- you will understand when I tell you that this staff is about seventy-five percent Jewish. Now my point is that the Jews should stay away from this trial -- for their own sake. "For -- mark this well -- the charge 'a war for the Jews' is still being made and in the post-war years it will be made again and again.
"The too large percentage of Jewish men and women here will be cited as proof of this charge. Sometimes it seems that the Jews will never learn about these things. They seem intent on bringing new difficulties down on their own heads. I do not like to write about this matter --it is distasteful to me -- but I am disturbed about it. They are pushing and crowding and competing with each other and with everyone else."
Chris Dodd tells me that when he reads this letter, "I first of all cringe a little bit because I wonder what he's driving at." 
Source: Complete article




My Revolutionary Life: Muzzling the Vanquished
My Revolutionary Life: Muzzling the Vanquished
With an introduction by John NugentF or those of us who escaped in 1945 from the Eastern Front’s final hell, torn up by wounds, overcome by sorrows, devoured by pain, what rights do we still have? We are dead men. Dead men with legs, arms, and breath—but dead. To pronounce a word of truth in public or write a dozen lines without lies after having fought pistol in hand against the Soviet machine—above all, to have been a leader called “fascist”—this is immediately seen by the ... more info






Hajo Herrmann
http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/herrmann.html
Hajo Herrmann (1913-2010) was an outstanding German Luftwaffe pilot who also distinguished himself during the Second World War as a courageous air force commander and innovative air defense tactician.
 
After the war he built a new career as an attorney, and became known for his role in civil rights cases, defending patriots and so-called “Holocaust deniers” accused of violating German laws against free speech. Until his death at the age of 97, he remained steadfastly loyal to his people, his heritage, and the ideals of his youth.
After beginning his military career as an infantry officer, he was commissioned in the newly formed Luftwaffe in 1935.
From 1936 until 1937, he was a bomber pilot in the Condor Legion, which aided the Nationalists in the Spanish civil war.
After the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939, he flew planes in the campaigns in Poland and Norway. By 1940 he was Commander of the 7th Staffel KG-4 combat squadron, and led many air attacks on England during the “Battle of Britain.” In February 1941, his group went to Sicily, where it flew against British forces in Malta and Greece. In one attack, Herrmann dropped a bomb on an ammunition ship that set off a explosion so devastating that it sank eleven ships and rendered the Greek port of Piraeus unusable for months. In early 1942, he was Commander of III/KG 30, which struck from Norway against Allied Arctic convoys, including attacks on convoy PQ-17
In mid-1942 he was assigned to the Luftwaffe Operational Staff, where he soon made a name for himself as a outstanding tactical and operational innovator in strengthening Germany’s air defenses.


In response to the ever more devastating attacks by British and American bombers, Herrmann created Luftwaffe night fighter attack squadron Jagdgeschwader 300, nicknamed Wilde Sau (German: wild boar), which used an innovative freelance fighter technique. Experienced night flying pilots and ex-instructors in Fw 190 fighters would visually “free-hunt” enemy bombers by the light of fires below, and with the aid of special ‘flare-carrier” Junkers JU 88 s following the bomber streams, as well as the use of the Naxos radar detector unit on some of these single-engined fighters to find British night bombers when they were using radar.
In December 1943, the 30-year-old Herrmann was appointed Inspector of Aerial Defense. By 1944, he was Inspector General of night fighters. At the end of 1944, he led the “9. Flieger-division (J).”
Because all Germans were targeted for death in a ruthless bombing effort that British and American authorities themselves called a “terror” campaign, Germany’s improved air defenses saved the lives of many women, children and other civilians. In helping to significantly strengthen his nation’s air defense system, Herrmann played an important role in saving many civilians from horrific suffering and death.
As a bomber pilot, Herrmann flew 320 missions and sank twelve ships totaling 70,000 tons. He also flew more than 50 night fighter missions, destroying nine Allied bombers He was shot down four times, and wounded twice. For his valor and skill, he earned a number of decorations, including the Knight’s Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords, the German Cross in Gold, and
the Iron Cross, first and second class.
At the end of the war Herrmann became a Soviet captive, and was held for ten years in Soviet Russian prison camps. .
After returning to his homeland in 1955, he studied law and settled in Düsseldorf., where he worked as an attorney. He served as a civil rights lawyer in defending such “thought criminals” as Otto Ernst Remer, David Irving and Fred Leuchter, who were charged with violating German laws against free speech. In the case of Irving, Herrmann defended the British historian at no charge in three “thought crimes” trials, 1990-1993.
Herrmann was a friend of the Institute for Historical Review. On Nov. 8, 1998, he addressed an IHR meeting in southern California, where he provided fascinating details about his remarkable life, and insights into the climate of intellectual repression in Germany. 
 
Herrmann was the author of two volumes of memoirs. An English-language edition of his memoirs was published in 1991 under the title Eagle’s Wings.
He remained active into the final years of his life, practicing law and addressing meetings.
Revisionists.com




Friday, 24 February 2012


Germany's WW1 "war guilt myth"



Senator Robert Latham Owen, Jr. (1856 – 1947)





War-lies and Atrocity Propaganda:
How the good-doers justify crimes against humanity
Revelations according to German Television
The greedier USrael becomes for oil and Israel for the water resources of the Middle East, the reports about alleged crimes of Saddam Hussein increase in their craziness.
The readiness to wage a war of aggression against countries who have done nothing to the aggressors, were already achieved during World War I by spreading atrocity propaganda. The following is an overview about atrocity lies, which were invented in order to find a shabby justification for unspeakable destruction and mass murders.
1. Gas-Chamber-Lies: With the help of a gas-chamber-lie America interfered in the war against the German Reich in 1917. By meddling in this war, America's enty into the war increased the regional conflict into a full-scale world war. America's aim in the long run, was to bring Europe under its hegemonial control. The Daily Telegraph published in 1916 a decisive gas-chamber-lie which made the American people consent to America's war plans for Europe.

The Daily Telegraph
(London), March 22,1916, page 7: (London), June 25, 1942, page 5:
ATROCITIES IN SERBIA 700,000 VICTIMS
... Serbian refugees, not on oath, have sta-ted that they were present at a dis-tribution of bombs and machines for producing asphyxiating gas to the Bulgarians by the Germans and Aus-trians, who instructed the former how to utilise these instruments to exterminate the Serbian population...
GERMANS MURDER 700,000 JEWS IN POLAND
... The most gruesome details of mass killing, even to the use of poison gas, are revealed in a report sent secretly to Mr. S. Zygielboim, Jewish representative on the Polish National Council in London, by an active group in Poland...

"Atrocity propaganda is a term to define deliberate false reports about enemy crimes in war time. In principle this has always been a means of psychological warfare. Atrocity propaganda was used in abundance during WWI that the propaganda's credibility was effected and the aims very often could not be achieved. Such propaganda often caused the opposite effect when obvious lies were exposed. Famous atrocity propaganda lies were: German soldiers had, on detailed instruction by their emperor, Wilhelm II, hacked off the hands of Belgium children and then raped them. The other famous propaganda lie was published in the London Daily Telegraph in March 1916, that claimed Austrians had gassed 700,00 Serbs (sic!)"
Das Grosse Lexikon des Dritten Reiches
Südwest Verlag, München 1985, Seite 225
Any similarity between the above article and the one of the DAILY TELEGRAPH of 1916 would be purely accidental. Hitler's gas chambers are considered to be a fact of common knowledge and not a war-propaganda-lie as it was the case in 1916. The holocaust is judicially defined for the Germans as follows:
"The mass murder of the Jews mainly took place in gas chambers of German concentration camps. This is common knowledge and judicial notice."
(Supreme Court of Germany, File: 1 StR 179/93)
Jewish celebrities (i.e. G. Sereny) do, however,  make incriminating statements by calling Auschwitz "not a death camp". This constitutes a crime in Germany.

Gitta Sereny, one of Britain's most famous Jewish journalists and a recognized holocaust researcher, wrote a new book: The German Trauma: Experiences and Reflections 1938-2001, (Penguin Books). The Times reviewed the book and interviewed Mrs. Sereny. Mrs. Sereny said in the Interview (Times of Aug 29. 2001) the following:
"Why on earth have all these people who made Auschwitz into a sacred cow ... A terrible place -- but it was not an extermination camp."
In 1991 Wiesenthal was spreading gas chamber atrocity lies:

Feb 15, 1991, Frontpage:
WAR NEWS!
IRAQIS HAVE
GAS CHAMBERS
FOR ALL JEWS
Gas chambers again. The Jewish weekly "The Jewish Press" (New York) reveals on Feb. 15, 1991 that Saddam Hussein had gas chambers for all Jews. "Iraqis have gas chambers for all Jews".
This latest gas chamber revelation is not yet protected by the German law. It will be, if it becomes relevant to support the common knowledge of the existence of the Hitler gas chambers.

RESPONSE
THE WIESENTHAL CENTER WORLD REPORT, Spring 1991, Vol. 12, No.1, S. 2:
Shocking Revelation: German Firms Produce Zyklon B in Iraq
True to the legacy of their Nazi-era predecessors, the German bu-siness community has sought to absolve itself of its share of blame in the current Middle East disaster. "We did not knowingly supply Iraq with weapons of mass destruction - we violated no law - we were just filling orders ... Even more ominous, is the report that Iraq has developed a new potent gas which actually contains Zyklon B ... this gas, and the nerve gas, Tabun, were tested on Iranian POWs in gas chambers specially designed for the Iraqis by the German company ... (see cover photo of gas chamber prototype). German Gas Chamber: Nightmare Revisited ...

Simon Wiesenthal lies about gas chambers, as did the journalists from the Jewish Press and from The Daily Telegraph of 1916. If you are from Germany, please don't get any wrong ideas about the story of "The Daily Telegraph" of 1942. Politically incorrect thinking of the Nazi gas chambers are punished in Germany as "thought crimes" with up to five years of incarceration.
2. Incubator Lie
George W. Bush sr. forced America's public opinion to support his war against Iraq in 1991 by inventing the "Incubator-Lie". Bush sr. and the American media spread the lie that Iraqi soldiers had snatched infants out of hospital incubators and smashed them to pieces on the floors. George W. Bush said (re-translated from German TV): "They hurl incubator babies like firewood on the floor." (1) Before the Security Council of the Untied Nations a young Kuwaiti girl witnessed, that she observed the mass murder of the infants: "I saw with my own eyes how Iraqi soldiers tore infants out of the incubators and I watched them dying on the floor." (2) The young witness cried heartbreakingly when she told her story to the members of the UN-Security Council. After her stageperformance as a so-called eyewitness the war against Iraq was unanumously agreed and decided. The justification for this war was, however, based on an atrocity lie: "After the war, the whole truth came to light: The baby-murders never took place, it was all a lie. The witness performance before the UN-Security-Council was strong anough to be awarded with a Hollywood Oscar. The young girl who saw the baby-murders was really the doughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to America. The entire atrocity story was fabricated in New York, by the publicity professionals of Hill & Knowlton. This firm maintains close contacts to the American government. ... It was a perfidious show, a vast manipulation in order to legitimise a war. In order to get the support from the American Congress and the public, Bush had to prove that this war was against the devil himself. An inhumane and barbaric Regime that does not even stop before baby-murders. It was a PR-trick of the most perfidious kind." (3)
1-3) German TV, PANORAMA No. 622, Feb 6, 2003

3. The Tonking-Lie
"In 1964 in America, an entire nation wanted peace, the opposite to the desire of their government. US-President Johnson was determined to wage war in Vietnam. To help to implent Johnson's war-project, an incident in the Gulf of Tonking came just at the right moment. On August 4 the US-Destroyer 'Maddox' was alegedly torpedoed by a North-Vietnamese torpedo-boat. A serious provocation the Americans claimed. The case was brought before the United Nations and the mood changed. There was no longer a desire for peace amongst the American public. President Johnson had his pretext for bombing North-Vietnam. Lyndon B. Johnson (US-President) on TV then: 'As I speak to you tonight, our action is now an execution.' For the first time America became directly involved in combat on Vietnamese soil. That is how the Vietnam-War began. Seven years later Journalists from the New York Times discovered that the pretext for war was nothing but a propaganda lie. The truth is, the Americans together with their ally South-Vietnam, attacked North-Vietnam first. ... Johnson needed a pretext and a justification for a war against the Vietcong, as he had to convince the congress for to back his war plans. Johnson needed the American public and the world's support for his war in Vietnam. The 'Tonking-Lie' was just perfect." (German TV, PANORAMA No. 622, Feb 6, 2003)
4. The Kosovo-Lie
"In January 1999, two months before the war in Kosovo was launched, pictures of 23 dead Albanians, lying next to each other in a row, implying that a massacre had taken place, were sent to Western governments. German Defence Minister, Rudolf Scharping, appreciated these photos, because he required photographic evidence of Serbian atrocities, with which he intended to justify the imminent war against Milosevic. The Minister showed these photos to the press as proof that a mass murder had taken place in the Village of Rugovo. He claimed that the incident had been thoroughly checked and investigated. Rudolf Scharping: 'This case has been deeply investigated and we obtained these photos from OSCE officials who had taken them in the morning between 7 and 8 h.' ... A German police official, Henning Hensch, who was at the site as an international investigator, explained: 'The story is incorrectly told. The dead bodies were there, yes, but they were taken there by Serbian security forces, after the real site of the crime had been inspected. It was decided by the investigating judge to take the dead bodies away from the site where they had died.' TV images prove: At first, the dead lay around scattered as after a shoot-out. Amongst the dead were Albanian KLA  fighters. After the original crime scene had been inspected and investigated, the dead were taken to another place and were laid next to each other in a row. This was the scene later photographed and the pictures sent to Western governments. These were the images the German Defence Minister had used when he proved a Serbian massacre. ... It is about war in the heads and hearts of the people, and those who win this one, win the real war eventually. This is especially significant in democracies because they need the support of their own people for waging wars." (German TV, PANORAMA No. 622, Feb 6, 2003)
Which lie will America use to justify its forthcoming war against Iraq? Perhaps this one:
Re-translated from German: "The Iraqis torture children and force their parents to watch the torture. Witness accounts report on torture chambers and electric shock treatment, also using red-hot iron for torture. The witness reports refer to cuting out tongues and to raping. If that is not evil, then there is no evil." This was said by President George W. Bush sr before Congress in February 2003.  (German TV, PANORAMA Nr. 622 vom 6.2.2003)


PDF - Vérité pour l'Allemagne: La question des responsabilités de la seconde guerre mondiale, par Udo Walendy

PDF - Non coupables au procès de Nuremberg, par Carlos Porter

PDF - Vincent Reynouard - Julius Streicher à Nuremberg ...

General George S. Patton was assassinated to silence his criticism of allied war leaders claims new book


Holocaust Revisionism in One Easy Lesson | Wake Up From Your Slumber

The term 'historical revisionism' was first used to apply to the work of historian Harry Elmer Barnes and his associates, whose earliest historical work was motivated by the belief that the generally-accepted versions of events of the First World War not only harbored serious errors, but were heavily influenced by the biases of the institutions which underwrote the "Court Historians" responsible for these versions. Barnes, however, noted that historical revisionism -- "The effort to correct the historical record in the light of a more complete collection of historical facts, a more calm political atmosphere, and a more objective attitude" in his words (Barnes Review Oct 94: 3) -- was itself an activity with a very long history, going back at least as far as the exposure of the forgery of the "Donation of Constantine" by Lorenzo Valla (1407-57).





The Tradition of Historical Revisionism
Published: 
1982-01-01
"Truth is always the first war casualty. The emotional disturbances and distortions in historical writing are greatest in wartime."
These are the words of historian, sociologist and criminologist Prof. Harry Elmer Barnes, who founded a school of historical thought following World War One that became known as Revisionist.
But why Revisionist? What is Historical Revisionism? And what makes it different from the history we learn in school and see portrayed in the popular media?
For the late Dr. Barnes, Revisionism meant "...nothing more or less than the effort to correct the historical record in the light of a more complete collection of historical facts, a more calm political atmosphere, and a more objective attitude."
The term originated with a group of scholars (French, British, American, German and others) whose researches undermined the presumption of unique German responsibility for the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. Although the term Revisionist originally was used to apply only to the question of guilt for WW I, it has subsequently come to include all historical findings at odds with the Establishment version. Revisionism is freedom of speech in history.
Those early Revisionists and those who followed the tradition recognized a fact of life pertaining to the writing of history: in the case of wars, historians of the victorious nations tend to write historical accounts that ignore relevant facts not favorable to the victor while, at the same time, misrepresenting or inventing other facts in order to cast the loser in an unfavorable light. Most of these historians had played an active role in World War I, many in propaganda and intelligence; after the Second World War, it was not uncommon for them to continue to have links with intelligence agencies.
The efforts of Establishment historians to remain on the good side of the powers-that-be (like the court historians who served kings and emperors of old) created a historical record that oftentimes resembled wartime propaganda more than independent scholarship.
"To the victor go the spoils" is a well-known saying of American president Andrew Jackson. One of the great spoils of winning a war is being able to write the history of it from your own perspective.
When history is written by partisan historians from a victor nation, the winning side emerges simplistically as the "good guys." The losers, of course, are the "bad guys." Questions about the origins of the war (for instance, about the real story behind the sinking of the Lusitania or the attack on Pearl Harbor), about its conduct (did the "Huns" really cut off infants' hands in Belgium? Were we justified in annihilating the populations of whole cities like Dresden and Tokyo from the air?), and about its conclusion (such as the wisdom of the Treaty of Versailles or the secret deals at Teheran and Yalta) are ignored or swept aside.
Following the First World War, Harry Elmer Barnes and other historians, both in the victor nations and the vanquished, "revised" the official version of the winners by gaining access to the secret records of the wartime governments - their ministers, generals and diplomats. The documents demonstrated that there was a very big difference between what the leaders were saying in public and what they were doing in private. The Revisionists demonstrated that millions of men had gone to their deaths for ideals at which those in power secretly scoffed. A great and healthy revulsion against war and warmakers set in and Americans set their faces against further "crusades" across the oceans.
But the upheaval which the First World War had brought about in Europe and Asia and the short-sighted settlements which the victors had imposed on the defeated nations led to another war. This time the ruling Establishments in the victor nations determined that there would be no "revision" of their wartime propaganda, no "bringing history into accord with the facts." The men who wrote the authorized histories of the Second World War were tied to their society's ruling elites-both public and private- just as closely as the court historians of bygone days. They enjoyed privileged access to the records, many of which they had helped create themselves with their wartime roles in propaganda and intelligence. Dissident historians- the "Revisionists" - were excluded.
It is crucial, however, that we gain an understanding of the actual origins, course and consequences of World War II and of all modern wars. "Good guys" vs. "bad guys" history reinforces wartime propaganda. Carried over into peacetime it stands in the way of reconciliation and fosters an atmosphere in which all the world's conflicts are viewed as epochal struggles between Good and Evil.
It is the Revisionists' aim to understand wars, not to continue to fight them in endless polemical battles. Revisionists search for the underlying causes of wars, hold the self-serving claims of all parties to those struggles to critical review, and investigate the role of often shadowy third parties that sought to profit from wars waged ostensibly on behalf of nation-states.
Revisionist scholars are working in many nations. The movement defies political classification on the conventional "left-right" spectrum. Revisionists are dedicated first to discovering the truth that is often hidden away in secret archives that governments and established powers everywhere would seal up in perpetuity. They are further dedicated to the principle that citizens have a right to know what their governments are actually doing behind the scenes.
The Revisionists are deeply concerned with the imposition of a monolithic orthodoxy in any area of historical research. The Revisionists have challenged, in particular, some of the most sacrosanct dogmas of World War II propaganda, from the unmitigated evil and aggressiveness of Germany, Japan, and their allies, to the unquestioning acceptance of the so-called Holocaust in all its improbable details.
Revisionists have learned, and teach, that a misunderstanding of the nature of conflicts between nations allows politicians, often fronting for special interests, to lead us blindly into wars in which the great majority of the citizenry has no real interest. The failure to properly understand our own involvement in the European wars has involved Americans in one crisis after another in the decades following World War II, from Korea to Vietnam to Beirut. Each time the politicians have assured us that we are repelling "aggression," staving off "bloodbaths," "fighting Communism" or "terrorism" or what have you. And each time the interventions have ended not in victory, but in death, frustration, and dishonor.
Still, special interests conjure up new Bad Guys, new devils. The tangle of rivalries and hatreds that outside intervention has created in the Middle East continues to provide our leaders with excuses for new adventures, from the Persian Gulf to Libya. Will the kind of popular hatred manufactured against foreign leaders like Khadafy or Khomeini lure us into a new crusade? Or even into a catastrophic nuclear conflict?
Not if the findings of Revisionists are heeded. Barnes and his colleagues, and their successors, working from a deep conviction that war is unnecessary, have demonstrated how specious were the justifications and how injurious the results have been of the wars America has blundered into over the past century. These wars have diminished our freedoms, undermined our wealth and created a false illusion of national rectitude.
The Revisionists are perhaps the only students of the past who have heeded the warning of George Orwell that: "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." By wrestling control of the past from established interests and returning it to those who lived and suffered it, Revisionists may make possible a secure and prosperous future for all of us.
If we can face up to and acknowledge the existence of the underlying causes of war and what our own leaders have done to encourage war, prolong it and make it more destructive than at any other time in history, we may be on our way to achieving the just and lasting peace that every person of good will desires.

Tom Marcellus was formerly the Director of the Institute for Historical Review.
For a current catalog, with a complete listing of books and audio and video tapes, send one dollar to:
Institute For Historical Review
Post Office Box 2739
Newport Beach, California 92659






Historians as Tools  of the Global Elite
 Court Historians Regurgitate New Versions of Prewar and Wartime Propaganda Dressed Up as History

“TO THE VICTOR BELONG THE SPOILS,” the old saying goes. It might be amended to say, “To the victor belongs the privilege of writing history.” Julius Caesar certainly recognized that when he wrote in Commentaries on the Gallic War, Book I, that “It is the law of war for conquerors to deal with the conquered at their pleasure”—and that, of course, included the writing of “court” history. Another writer, a diplomat and scientist, Benjamin Franklin, had his own twist on the subject, declaring in Poor Richard’s Almanac that, “Historians relate, not so much what is done, as what they would have believed [by the people].” This distortion of history is what Revisionists are fighting against.

BY MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER

In the years following both World War I and World War II when real historians such as Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes and his colleague dared to suggest that the postwar histories, written by the victors, were hardly more than the product of “court historians” essentially regurgitating new versions of prewar and wartime propaganda dressed up as “history,” Barnes and his fellow Revisionists were defamed as “conspiracy theorists” and worse.

However, with even the most cursory review of the role that many eminent and “respected” American postwar historians played as top-level intelligence officers during World War II, for example, one cannot help but wonder how reliable their academic accounts of the history of that period were.

In 1987 Yale University professor Robin W. Winks (now deceased) published his award-winning 607-page book, Cloak and Gown: Scholars in the Secret War, 1939-1961 (New Haven: Yale University Press) outlining the very substantial (but until then largely little-known) details surrounding the involvement of American academics in the activities of the CIA and its World War II predecessor, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS).

“Each government accuses the other
of perfidy, intrigue and ambition, as a
means of heating the imagination of
their respective nations, and incensing
them to hostilities”
—THOMAS PAINE

In his book, Winks provided readers with an eye-opening list of the names of some—but far from all—American academics (largely historians) who served in the OSS during World War II and were therefore part of (and directing) America’s official covert intelligence operations against the enemy. The list is remarkable and demonstrates that there is reason to suggest the ties between academia and the U.S. government propaganda apparatus are even more profound than Harry Elmer Barnes may have suspected.
Many of the names will be immediately familiar. The names constitute a veritable laundry list of those whom Barnes quite correctly called “the court historians” and whom—by virtue of their wartime roles in the propaganda operations of the OSS—revolutionary statesman Thomas Paine might have been foreshadowing. He wrote of war-time propagandists in The Rights of Man declaring: “Each government accuses the other of perfidy intrigue and ambition, as a means of heating the imagination of their respective nations, and incensing them to hostilities”—not only during wartime but afterward as well. And that is why there is the need for Revisionist scholars to continue fighting to bring history into accord with the facts, wartime and postwar propaganda notwithstanding.

Spies Turned ‘Court Historians’

The World War II-era Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was the forerunner of the modern CIA, and also the spawning ground for a host of American academics who rose to prominence in postwar years. Most of these ex-spies—with little deviation—touted the “official” U.S.-British-Zionist intelligence propaganda version of the events that led up to the war, accounts of the war’s conduct and the twists of history that followed. Not for nothing did such independent historians as Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes refer to these characters as the “court historians.”

http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/images/herbohlbfinger250pxw.jpg
Above, Herbert Marcuse: It wasn’t “Hanoi Jane” Fonda or Huey Newton and the Black Panthers who invented the ideas and slogans that came to be identified with the “drop out” generation. It was Marcuse, drawing on Hegel, Marx and Sigmund Freud, who introduced the theory of “the great refusal,” meaning that individuals should reject and subvert the existing social order as repressive and conformist without waiting for a revolution. Marcuse left Germany one step ahead of the Gestapo to bring his “enlightenment” to America. He taught philosophy at various U.S. universities until his death in 1979.

Among the ex-OSS spies who became influential postwar arbiters of “official” history included (1) Arthur Schlesinger Jr., (2) Carl William Blegen and (3) James Phinney Baxter. 
What follows is the list of OSS-spawned academics taken from Winks’s book, including the sometimes-glowing descriptions that Winks provided:
  • James Phinney Baxter III, president of Williams College;
  • Carl Blegen, professor of history, University of Cincinnati, and a leading authority on American immigration and ethnic history;
  • Crane Brinton, professor of history, Harvard University, perhaps the leading historian of ideas on the European front;
  • Dr. Frederick Burkhardt, director of the American Council of Learned Societies;
  • John Christopher, professor of history, University of Rochester, who with Brinton and Robert Lee Wolff wrote an extremely influential (and extremely successful) textbook, History of Civilization, immediately after the war, a text that became one of two that dominated the market for the immediate postwar generation of undergraduate students. “Brinton, Christopher and Wolff,” as the text was known, reflected the synoptic view the authors developed while in the OSS, and it would not be totally revised until 1983;
  • Dr. Ray Cline, who wrote a first-rate volume in the official history of World War II and then returned to the intelligence profession. He became the CIA’s deputy director for intelligence from 1962 to 1966;
  • John Clive, professor of history, Harvard University, a major figure in 19th century British studies;
  • Gordon Craig, professor of history, Princeton and later Stanford universities, author of the leading books on the role of the military in German history;
  • John Curtiss, professor of history, Duke University, an authority on France;
  • Harold C. Deutsch, professor of history, University of Minnesota, also an important figure in the development of modern German history in the United States;
  • Donald M. Dozer, professor of history, University of California, Santa Barbara, a Latin Americanist;
  • Dr. Allan Evans, a medievalist from Yale who remained with the Department of State at the end of the war;
  • John K. Fairbank, professor of Chinese history at Harvard University, the leading sinologist of his generation;
  • Franklin L. Ford, professor of history, Harvard University, and the dean of Harvard College during the student disorders of the late 1960s;
  • Felix Gilbert, historian at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, an elegant diplomatist;
  • S. Everett Gleason, who worked with William Langer in the OSS and after, and returned to become the State Department’s historian;
  • Moses Hadas, professor of classics, Columbia University, who wrote on the expansion of the Roman empire;
  • Samuel W. Halperin, professor of history, University of Chicago, and after the war editor of The Journal of Modern History;
  • Henry B. Hill, professor of history, University of Kansas, who developed British history there and later at Wisconsin;
  • Hajo Holborn, Sterling professor of history, Yale University, who worked on occupation policy for Germany at the end of the war and wrote on the history of military occupation, becoming a dominant figure in the training of postwar Germanists;
  • H. Stuart Hughes, professor of history, Harvard University, who moved on from where Crane Brinton had left off in European intellectual (and especially Italian) history, and unsuccessfully ran for the House of Representatives in Massachusetts;
  • Sherman Kent, who left Yale to preside over ONE, the Office of National Estimates, at the CIA;
  • Clinton Knox, who also left the historical profession, becoming ambassador to Guinea;
  • Leonard Krieger, who returned from the OSS to become a professor at Yale and then of German intellectual history at the University of Chicago;
  • William L. Langer, the outstanding European diplomatic historian of his generation;
  • Val Lorwin, professor of history, University of Oregon, and the nation’s leading authority on the Low Countries;
  • Herbert Marcuse, who moved from history to philosophy at Brandeis and the University of California, and from the contemplative life to that of guru to the student revolt during the war in Vietnam;
  • Henry Cord Meyer, professor of history, Pomona College, another leading Germanist who left Yale for the West Coast;
  • Saul K. Padover, professor at the New School for Social Research, authority on Jefferson and democratic thought, and a pioneer lecturer on American history at a wide range of universities overseas;
  • Michael B. Petrovich, professor of history, University of Wisconsin, who developed Russian studies there;
  • David H. Pinckney, professor of history, first at the University of Missouri and then the University of Washington, a major force in French history and, like Brinton, Craig, Fairbank, Holborn, Langer, and Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., a president of the American Historical Association, perhaps the highest honor the discipline can bestow on one of its own;
  • David M. Potter, professor of history, Yale University (and later at Stanford), who with Ralph Gabriel and Norman Holmes Pearson firmly established American studies at Yale;
  • Conyers Read, professor of history, University of Pennsylvania, an authority on Elizabethan England and the prime mover behind the Council on Foreign Relations in Philadelphia;
  • Henry L. Roberts, professor of history, Columbia University, who followed Geroid Robinson in developing a front-rank Russian studies program at that institution;
  • Elspeth D. Rostow, University of Texas, who with her husband,
  • Walt Whitman Rostow, worked out major interpretations on American foreign policy;
  • John E. Sawyer, economic historian who left Yale to become president of Williams College and then of the Mellon Foundation;
  • Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., professor of history, Harvard University, polymath, adviser to and historian for the Kennedys before his transition to a Schweitzer chair at the City University of New York;
  • Bernadotte E. Schmitt, who after the war lived in retirement, lauded as the leading historian of the causes of WWI;
  • Carl E. Schorske, professor of history at Wesleyan and then Princeton University, an authority on European intellectual history;
  • Raymond Sontag, professor of history, University of California at Berkeley, the first of the old OSS team to publicly remind the student generation of the 1960s of his service and of why academics had felt it appropriate to engage in intelligence work, which he had
  • Wayne S. Vucinich, professor of history, continued to do as a consultant to ONE;
  • L.S. Stavrianos, professor of history, Northwestern University, who carried the idea of global history further than any other scholar, in a series of notable texts;
  • Richard P. Stebbins, a man Sherman Kent felt could turn out more work of high quality than anyone else in his shop, who became director of the Council on Foreign Relations;
  • Paul R. Sweet, who also remained with the State Department, in change of its official histories and archives.
  • Alexander Vucinich, professor of history, San Jose State University, a leading authority on Eastern Europe; Stanford University, who covered the same waterfront;
  • Paul L. Ward, who became the executive director of the American Historical Association;
  • Albert Weinberg, technically a political scientist, although the author of a fine historical analysis of American imperial expansion, who remained in government work after the war;
  • Robert Lee Wolff, professor of history, Harvard University, that institution’s outstanding authority on Eastern Europe;
  • John H. Wuorinen, professor of history, Columbia University, who covered Scandinavia and in particular Finland;
  • T. Cuyler Young, professor of archeology, Princeton University, who, with Richard Frye at Harvard (who also was in the OSS), pioneered Iranian studies in the United States.
This list, needless to say, is highly revealing, if only because it demonstrates how closely American academics have been linked to the intelligence community, and in this case, during wartime. The truth is that—despite the passing of decades—nothing has changed. The American academic community has consistently been influenced by—and in many respects, has been a part of—the high-level policy-makers, war-planners, and other elements of the high level ruling elite.







Mensonges et rumeurs en temps de guerre


Lord Arthur Ponsonby of Shulbrede (1871-1946) était une figure atypique de la Grande-Bretagne de la première moitié du XXe siècle. Ancien page de la Reine Victoria, il embrassa une carrière diplomatique puis politique. Elu député libéral de Sitling (Ecosse) de 1908 à 1918, il fut l’un des principaux animateurs des mouvements pacifistes de l’entre-deux-guerres. Réélu député (travailliste cette fois) de 1922 à 1930, il fut sous-secrétaire d’Etat aux Affaires Etrangères en 1924, sous-secrétaire d’Etat aux Colonies en 1929 et secrétaire du Parlement auprès du Ministère des Transports de 1929 à 1931. De 1931 à 1935, il est le chef de l’opposition travailliste au Parlement. En 1930, il écrivit un livre, Mensonges et rumeurs en temps de guerre , consacré aux bobards de la Première Guerre Mondiale.

La plus célèbre est celle des Allemands coupant les mains des bébés belges. Lord Ponsonby arrive à remonter à l’origine du bobard : un article du Times du 27 août 1914.

Il y a aussi toute la gamme d’histoire au sujet de la collection de timbres (le bobard a été réutilisé contre les Japonais en 1942… et par les Allemands contre les Russes en 1916) : un prisonnier écrit à sa famille que tout va bien et demande à ce que l’on garde le timbre, très rare. Or, une fois le timbre décollé, on voit écrit sous celui-ci « ils m’ont coupé la langue (ou les pieds, c’est selon)… Or, les lettres des prisonniers n’ont jamais de timbres mais un tampon postal spécial équivalent à l’ancienne « franchise militaire ».

Il y eut aussi le bobard lancé par le commissaire de la marine de réserve Hughes Collingwood qui accusa l’équipage d’un sous-marin allemand en détresse sauvé par la marine anglaise de ne pas avoir signalé la présence de quatre prisonniers britanniques dans le bâtiment qu’ils s’apprêtaient à saborder.

Autre légende, celle du soldat américain de 17 ans dont les Allemands auraient coupé les oreilles et renvoyé dans les lignes alliés en disant qu’ils voulaient se battre contre de vrais hommes…

On retrouve presque mot pour mot la célèbre histoire du portefeuille : une infirmière anglaise sauve un officier allemand à l’article de la mort. Dans un élan de gratitude, il lui dit au moment de partir « Je ne peux pas vous en dire davantage, mais méfiez-vous du métro en avril (1915) ».

Il y eut aussi l’affaire de la graisse humaine récupérée sur les cadavres de soldats allemands par les autorités du Reich (deuxième du nom) : apparue pour la première fois dans les colonnes du Times le 16 avril 1917, il faudra attendre 1925 pour qu’il soit démenti. Ce en quoi il a vécu moins longtemps que son homologue de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale qui résistera vaillamment jusqu’au milieu des années quatre-vingts.

A la fin de la Première Guerre Mondiale, tous ces bobards furent abandonnés car ils ne servaient plus à rien. Certains furent recyclés pour la seconde et sont devenus « croyance obligatoire ».Il y a une différence fondamentale : ils n’ont jamais cessé d’être nécessaires car ils sont le fondement de l’existence même de l’état d’Israël et l’unique légitimation de la purification ethnique de 1948…

Source: Arthur PONSONBY – Mensonges et rumeurs en temps de guerre – CHC, 45/3, route de Vourles – 69230 SAINT-GENIS-LAVAL.






The Political Foundations

of the Federal Republic of Germany



In a speech that he gave at the gala dinner of the Jewish World Congress in New York on 11 September 2000, Joschka Fischer, former Federal German Minister of Foreign Affairs, emphasized that he understands “how vitally important it is to preserve awareness of our responsibility for preserving Remembrance (of ‘Holocaust’). Remembrance is a constant obligation for a democraticGermany. It must remain a perpetual obligation in future as well.” Elaborating on this implied obligation for all Germans for all time, he went on to explain: “We know that we cannot abandon our history and put it behind us. All those who attempted to drop penance have perished on the shoals of Auschwitz and German guilt for Shoa -- and justly so. An ancient Jewish proverb teaches us that the desire to forget merely prolongs our exile. “The secret of salvation is eternal Remembrance! -- Remembrance primarily of the six million murdered sons and daughters of the Jewish Nation, but also of the other victims of Hitler’s war and racism and of National Socialist viciousness.”

Thus, Fischer declared “Remembrance” to be the foundation on which the Federal Republic is built. He has endowed us with the following creed: The origin and inherent nature of our present German democracy are conceivable only against the backgroud of Holocaust. In 1933, Germany began its descent into atrocity with its contemptuous treatment of the Jews, with a brutal denial of their human dignity and human rights. These German Jews were citizens of the Reich, many of whom courageously sacrificed their lives for their German homeland during the First World War. The lesson of this is clear and unmistakable: The dignity of mankind must never again be violated. Respect for human dignity is the minimum requirement for the civilized coexistence of nations. This imperative forms the first article of our Consitution, which reads: ‘Man’s dignity is inviolable. It is the obligation of state power to observe and protect all human dignity.’ This is the very foundation of our democracy. This is the legacy that the victims of the Nazi terror, especially the murdered Jews, have bequeathed to us Germans; andwe have accepted this obligation... Germany is aware of its special historical obligation to insure the security of the state of Israel and its right to exist. This obligation will continue to be firm and unalterable for us Germans. It cannot be relativized. In future as well as the present, it will continue to define the unique character of our relations with Israel. Israel can rely on a democratic Germany as an undaunted friend and ally for all time. This is our moral obligation, and this is the firm political will of all the generations that inherit the difficult legacy of German history. Our watchword will always be: guard Remembrance and accept the responsibility that goes with it.”[1]

For Elan Steinberg, Speaker of the Jewish World Congress, Fischer’s words were “an estraordinary acknowledgment of guilt and responsibility.” Fischer had done more than just apologize on behalf of Germany -- he also demanded that his own generation, which was born after the War, take responsibility for events of the past. In December 2002, President Johannes Rau, following a visit by his Israeli colleague Moshe Katzav, emphasized the special obligation of Germany for the security of Israel,” stating “...we as Germans have a very great responsibility, towards Israel , a responsibility greater than that of any other country. [2] We must do everything in our power to ensure that Israel can live free of terror and within secure borders.” This statement might just as easily originated with an Israeli politician -- except that it would not have sounded so presumptuous coming from an Israeli! The issuance of such portentous blank checks by German politicians to third parties, in particular the nation of Israel, makes sense only if one is aware of the political foundations on which the Federal Republic of Germany is built -- the state in whose name Fischer, Rau and their colleagues were speaking.

The “Auschwitz Lie”

and “Sole Responsibility for the War”

In his work dealing with today’s basic issues, Sind Gedanken noch frei? (Are Thoughts Still Free), published in Munich in 2001, the author presented the thesis that the underlying legal foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany is characterized by two basic principles. These are acknowledgment of sole guilt for the Second World War and acknowledgment of guilt for the genocidal murder of millions of innocent persons during the Third Reich, primarily on racial grounds. In the Federal Republic, both acknowledgments enjoy the status of indisputable fact; and expressing skepticism about their validity can entail serious legal consequences. In order to understand this unique phenomenon of national self-castigation, we have to return to 1945 and review essential aspects of Germany’s “liberation.”

Walter Lippmann, the son of German Jews born in New York, was one of the most influential American journalists and authors of books from the 1920s until the 1950s. In 1920 he became the chief editor of the New York World and in 1931 he gained international prominence as a columnist with the Herald Tribune. Writing on the subject of total defeat of an enemy, Lipmann declared that, in addition to the necessary occupation of an enemy country and criminal trials and executions of its vanquished leaders in “war crimes trials,” the most important guarantor of total and permanent victory could be accomplished only when and if the vanquished are subjected to a thoroughgoing re-education process. The obvious method for accomplishing this is the implantation of the version of history as viewed by the victor, into the mind of the vanquished. The transplantation of the ‘moral’ categories of the war propaganda of the victorious country into the consciousness of the vanquished is of decisive significance in this regard... Re-education cannot be considered truly successful until the war propaganda of the victors has found its way into the history books of the vanquished and is accepted as true by subsequent generations.”[3]

After 1945 these theoretical plans for “re-education” – a euphemism for brainwashing – were successfully put into practice in Germany by the United States. These guidelines for re-education were printed in a noncommercial booklet entitled What to do with Germany and distributed by the Special Services Division for Psychological Warfare of the US Army, and they are frequently quoted in secondary literature. Re-education will be required equally for young and old, and it must not be limited to the classroom. The persuasive power of dramatic presentation must be exploited, and movies can be used to greatest effect here... Under the guidance of the ‘International University,’ the greatest authors, producers and stars will dramatize the infinite evil of Nazism and contrast it with the beauty and simplicity of a Germany that is no longer preoccupied with militarism and marching in step. They will have the mission of presenting an attractive picture of democracy. In addition, radio will penetrate individual homes with discussions as well as undisguised lectures.

Authors, dramatists, publishers and printers must all be subjected to constant testing by the “International University”, since they are all educators. All non-democratic publications must be suppressed from the outset. Only after the German way of thinking has had opportunity to be reenforced in the new ideals may opposing views be allowed, when we are confident that the (Nazi) virus has no further medium in which to grow. This will provide still greater immunity in future. The re-education process must cover and permeate all Germany. Even workers should receive simplified lessons in democracy, in their leisure time.

Summer vacations and opportunities for higher education of the masses must also support this endeavor... The ‘International University’ is in the best position to monitor and control the details of the German education system: the curricula of schools, choice of teachers and textbooks – in short, all pedagogical matters. We need a command structure for this aggressive re-education. Outsanding German students will be given opportunities to continue their education in our schools. They will return to Germany as teachers and found a new cultural tradition in conjunction with an international sense of citizenship. Insofar as possible, the professsors should be German liberals and democrats. The introduction of ‘aliens’ could have a stimulating effect but must be kept to a minimum, since it must not lead to our losing control.

Every imaginable kind of intellectual influence that is compatible with democratic culture should be placed in the service of re-education. The roles of churches, movies, theatre, radio, press and labor unions are all specifically called for here... Re-education will replace military conscription, and will be compulsory for every German, just as compulsory military service formerly was. Our task is to reestablish freedom and peace -- the freedom that was born on Mount Sinai and lay in the crib of Bethlehem. The peace whose tender youth was spent in England; whose iron schoolmaster was France; whose young manhood was spent in the US; and which, if we do our part, is destined to live prevail all over the world!” [4]

The prerequisite for carrying out this re-education was German acceptance of the doctrine of “double collective guilt.” Since the founding of the Federal Republic, this has been incessantly emphasized and repeated by politicians and leading intellectuals.

This prompted the political scientist Theodor Eschenburg to describe the foundation of the West German state in these words: Unquestioning acknowledgment of the sole guilt of Hitler (in starting the War) is clearly a basic founding principle of the Federal Republic.” The journalist Sebastian Haffner (real name Raimund Pretzel), who immigrated to Britain in 1938, also shared this view. As a persistent advocate of partitioning Germany, he was decisive in “re-educating” the German nation. According to Haffner, anyone who challenges the status quo threatens the peace in Europe. (By “status quo” he meant the national-pedagogical concept of history that was considered positive by the victorious powers.)

In his address to the Federal Parliament of 9 November 1988, President Philipp Jenninger acknowledged that “every political question in the Federal Republic orbits about a conscious awareness of Auschwitz.” Former District Court President Rudolf Wassermann reaffirmed this view in 1994: “Whoever denies the truth about National Socialist extermination camps is abandoning the foundations on which the Federal Republic is built... Whoever denies Auschwitz attacks more than the human dignity of the Jews -- he threatens the very basis of our society’s credulity.”[5]

Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, who in Spiegel magazine (Vol. 28/1987) designated Auschwitz as “Our Reason for Existance” 20 years ago, declared in the Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung on 18 February 1999: Every democracy has a basis, a foundation. For France this is 1789, for the USA it is the Declaration of Independence, and for Spain it is the Spanish Civil War. Well, for Germany it is Auschwitz. It can only be Auschwitz. In my eyes, the remembrance of Auschwitz, of “Never-again Auschwitz” is the only possible foundation for the new Republic in Berlin.”

These acknowledgments by influential personalities, derived over several decades, introduce the logical second step in our theory. The “historically established facts” of Germany’s sole guilt for the War and Germany’s “policy of genocide” (meaning collective guilt) form the basis on which the Federal Republic of Germany was founded. They also represent the essential factor for determining whether a given opinion may be freely expressed in the Federal Republic of Germany: that is, whether the opinion is legally irrelevant, or whether it violates one or both of the basic acknowledged “facts” and therefore does not enjoy the constitutional protection of free speech. The situation in Austria is very similar.

The party bearing sole responsibility the outbreak the Second World War is as irrefutable in the Berlin Republic as the “fact” of the murder of six million Jews (no fewer than six million!) by Germans. One is not allowed to discuss such inviolable historical “facts.” One simply does not discuss them if one does not want to run the risk of being charged with “understatement”, “relativization” or “denial,” all of which are criminal acts in the Federal Republic. These “facts” are “offenkundig” or manifestly obvious and self-evident, hence they need not be proven, as do other crimes. This double collective guilt of the German nation – acknowledgment of sole responsiility for the Second World War and systematic genocide of Jews -- has become the intellectual content of historical awareness hereabouts.

It is not surprising that at nearly every wreath-laying, treaty signing or or state visit by a Federal Republic politician this very same reason for our national existence is repeated. Even on inappropriate occasions! At the Durban World Conference on Racism, Discrimination and Xenophobia in September 2001, Joschka Fischer, as official representative of his country, placed great stress on the following observation: “The most terrible atrocity of the 20th Century took place in my country, the genocide of six million European Jews as well as Roma and Sinti gypsies. Remembrance of this deed must not be relativized, and the responsibility for it will affect Germany’s policies forever. This is why Germany cannot accept understatement, relativization or denial of Holocaust. Germany must vigorously oppose and repress such things.”[6]

Germany’s “Double Collective Guilt” is the central point and pivot of Federal Republic historiography. It has long been applied to more that just the period of the Third Reich. In the above mentioned speech, History Genius Fischer promptly confessed German “guilt” for crimes committed in Africa during the Wilhelmenian era as well. He introduced his gallant confession on behalf of Germany with these equally gallant words: “I would also like to express thanks to our host, the South African government. Under its own volition, this country has succeeded in peacefully liberating itself from a dictatorship based on racism, succeeded in finding its way to a more just society. The courage of the South Africans to come together despite all scars of the past should be an inspiration for us at this conferenc.”[7]

All roads lead to Auschwitz -- and all roads come from there as well, if one is to believe the philosophy of history that is officially propagated by the Federal Republic. Thus, “Auschwitz” and “War Guilt” form the intellectual as well as official foundation of this country.

Doesn’t a nation’s concept of history reflect its image of itself? If this is true, and we believe that it is, then “...this systematic cultivation of a collective guilt complex is destroying our national consciousness. It is bringing about the intellectual de-nationalization of our people and turning them into a well-fed population of fellahs, a German variant of mass-man. The cultivation of this type is far advanced In our kindergartens, primary schools, high schools, colleges and above all, in the mass media.”[8]

More than any other organizations, the “System” or “Establishment” political parties are the bearers and agents of this policy of denationalization, which, we assume, does not displease the victorious powers. Such a pervasive denationalization has long been the official policy of the Federal Republic. In our socalled republic, all tendencies toward nationalism are dismissed by the media and government representatives as “Germanic claptrap” or even more strongly disparaged, often in ways that are truly grotesque. One example of this occurred several years ago, with a disgraceful attempt to change the inscription “Dem Deutschen Volke” (Dedicated to the German Nation) above the entrance of the Reichstag to “Der Bevölkerung” (Dedicated to The Population.)

Another such example was that of the “fat hen.” Ornithologists are not the only ones asking themselves about that fat round Bundesadler (Federal Eagle) in the plenary chamber of the Parliament Building. If he were a real bird, it is unlikely he would even be able to fly, much less soar majestically through the air. And yet, this grotesque symbol was highly praised by Wolfgang Thierse. He observed that the highly stylized bird was so peaceful and unaggressive that it was an appropriate symbol for the political consensus prevailing in the Federal Republic. In this point at least, one can hardly contradict the Federal President. The problem is that, while other nations of the world display the eagle as a mighty raptor on their emblem, a symbol of pride, dignity and freedom, the ladies and gentlemen in the Berlin Parliament gaze upon a ridiculous caricature that symbolizes the exact opposite of a proud eagle.

This country’s hostility toward Inländer (natives) is another remarkable Federal phenomenon that is found in Germany. Among Germans – but only among Germans -- patriotism is passé, something to be rejected and eradicated.

In the Berlin republic, love of country is officially discouraged. Here there is ever increasing stigmatization of art and literature that oppose or cirticize the present repressive regime. Official stigmatization necessitates the suppression of artistic and intellectual dissent that might influence public opinion with images as well as written or oral literary art. The opinions suppressed for contradicting the educational theories and interests of the German Establishment seldom “endanger the youth” or “incite the masses“ in any meaningful sense of those terms. Instead, they express opinions that challenge the monopoly of the opinion cartel -- certain powerful political and economic interests and institutions.[9]

In order to gain legal advantage over those who express politically incorrect opinions, these institutions had to be presented to the public in pseudo legalistic fashion. This was accomplished in April of 1994, when the Bundesgerichtshof or Federal Constitutional Court made the incontestable ruling that those who questioned the socalled “Auschwitz Lie” (concerning homicidal gassings of millions of Jews during the Third Reich) were no longer protected by constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and opinion. The organization “Human Rights Watch,” which according to Amnesty International is the second largest human rights organization in the world, commented: “The Court’s ruling appears to unduly restrict guaranteed freedoms of speech and expression.”[10] In this context, he word “unduly” is quite conspicuous: Human Rights Watch was remarking that the Court has limited these protected rights of freedom of speech and opinion in an exaggerated manner. Consequently, freedom of scientific research in the Federal Republic has been seriously damaged by misuse of the criminal law to protect vested political interests and socalled historical facts.

In a long and detailed letter to the editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung dated 8 September 1994, the historian Ernst Nolte demonstrated rare courage by stating that he is unable to refute the arguments of several Revisionists regarding the technical impossibility of mass murder using Zyklon B, since he is not a natural scientist. The eminent historian went on to describe how, on numerous occasions, he has come across documents that were generally and officially accepted as “undeniably authentic,” and which he treated as such, but which after forensic examination were exposed as falsifications. Nolte ended his letter with the observation that all questions concerning authenticity and feasibility have to be treated as objects for scientific investigation. For this reason, he has pleaded for unbiased consideration of the arguments of the “Auschwitz Revisionists.” As a result of official governmental policy, there is no longer freedom to investigate and discuss Auschwitz, “Holocaust” and World War II. The following sobering assessment, and the implications that go with it, were published in a letter to the editor of Welt magazine that was published on 4 November 1994. “No serious reader doubts that Jews were persecuted during the Third Reich. In a nation of laws, however, researchers must be free to investigate what is credible and what is not credible, what is scientifically possible and what is not.

When the criminal law is used to prohibit historical research of the “Holocaust” complex, and competent and highly respected professionals are not allowed to give expert testimony under threats of prosecution, one inevitably suspects that these serious charges levelled against Germany by the present government cannot withstand investigation.” On 20 May 1994, as a direct consequence of the Constitutional Court decision mentioned above, the Federal Parliament passed the ambiguously labelled Auschwitz-Lügen-Gesetz (Auschwitz Lie Law.) Section 130, Paragraph 3 of the Penal Code specifically states: “Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 220a subsection (1) [Genocide], in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be punished with imprisonment not to exceed five years, or a fine.”

At the time of its passage, this controversial legislation met with vigorous criticism and protest. The liberal journalist Horst Meier, who has often publicly championed freedom of speech for nonconformists, sharply criticized the “Auschwitz Lie Law.” In the newspaper die tageszeitung he characterized “the alliance of official historicity and monopoly of power” as “proof of the poverty of democracy in Germany.” In a detailed statement, Meier emphasized that the increasing represssiveness of the “Incitement” clause “places everyone’s political freedom in jeopardy and erodes confidence in our democracy.[11]

Max Güdes, former Federal Attorney General and CDU representative in Parliament, also pointed out that using the criminal law for political purposes is extremely dangerous to democratic institutions. He warned that government should not be allowed to pursue such a questionable political deterrent by means of severe punitive measures. The public must be free to develop and express its political will in constant debate or plebiscite, which represents the will of the law abiding citizenry. He emphasized that government should not be allowed to pursue such a questionable deterrent effect by means of punitive measures... rather, the public will must be free to evolve and express itself in constant debate or plebiscite, which represents the will of the law abiding citizenry.[12]

The severe legal restrictions on freedom of opinion and scientific research that result from Section 130 are obvious to everyone, including the Süddeutsche Zeitung. On 8 October 1998, this newspaperobserved that the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Constitutional Court) had heretofore insisted that freedom of speech is sacrosanct in any democracy. It pointed out that not only valid and well informed opinions are protected in a democracy. Aberrant and even repugnant opinions are protected as well: “It would indeed be absurd for the state to be allowed to decide which opinions are protected by our constitutional guarantee of free of speech, but this is precisely what it does with the new Paragraph 130, Section 3 of the Penal Code. The law prescribes historical facts and then, under criminal penalty, not only forbids denial of these official facts; it even forbids interpreting them in an unnapproved manner, by ‘understating’ their significance... The government that uses criminal law in such a way is entering on a very dangerous course. It is endangering our intellectual freedom.” Truer words were never spoken!
Gottfried Dietze, a specialist in human rights at John Hopkins University, observed that Paragraph 130 of the Penal Code “directly contradicts our cherished legal protection of freedom of opinion, thus violating what is universally acknowledged as the most basic freedom.” Professsor Dietze raises the question of whether Paragraph 130 has moved outside the framework of the Basic Law and must therefore be ruled unconstitutional. After all, the creation of the Basic Law had been enthusiastically received as a rejection of National Socialist tyranny. The attempts that were made in those days to avoid a relapse into dictatorship were very praiseworthy, even though they sometimes limited other laws. Sixty years after World War II it is very doubtful whether legislation such as Paragraph 130 is justified, in view of the fact that the danger of a relapse (into National Socialism) does not exist... in my opinion, it is not.” [13]

Prof. Dietze is obviously correct since there is no such thing as collective guilt.[14] As Professor of Psychology Herbert Speidel has explained, “Collective Guilt” contradicts prevailing principles of justice and legality. Every citizen understands that guilt must be established on an individual basis; and the accused is assumed to be innocent until and unless guilt has been established. This process of proving guilt individually is the principal test of cultural level and civilized procedure in the Western world.[15] Furthermore, the acknowledgment of collective German guilt was not an official demand of the victorious powers. This is repeatedly expressed in statements by their representatives. No less imposing figure than Josef Stalin categorically dismissed the idea of collective German guilt. On 23 February he stated: “It would be ridiculous to equate the Hitler clique with the German people and nation. History teaches us that Hitlers come and go, but the German people and the German nation remain.” Even Winston Churchill, who insisted on the idea of collective guilt during the War, rejected it a year after the capitulation of the Wehrmacht. In his speech before the Lower House on 5 June 1946 he quoted the liberal politician Edmund Burke (1729 – 1797), saying “I cannot condemn an entire nation.” And US President Ronald Reagan, during his visit to the German military cemetery in Bitburg on 5 May 1985, acknowledged that “A sense of guilt has been forced upon the Germans -- unjustly imposed upon them!”

The peculiar notion of collective guilt, along with the related cult of Vergangenheitsbewältigung (“Overcoming the Past”) was not conceived or imposed on Germany by the victorious powers, as is commonly assumed. Instead, it was concocted by Marxist intellectuals in West Germany during the 1960s and augmented in the 1970s before entering the statutes in the 1980s. Alexander and Margaret Mitscherlich, Karl Jaspers, Jürgen Habermas, Ralph Giordano, Richard von Weizsäcker, Roman Herzog, Joschka Fischer und Johannes Rau served as its godparents. As Herbert Speidel explains, it has had disastrous consequences as a national concept.

“Domestically, it hinders our national independence by destroying our positive sense of nationalism and creativity, along with the qualities and attitudes that would promote them. It damages the positive feeling of our inclusion in the family of nations as well our sense of educational competence and our intellectual independence... It creates psychological submissiveness and a satellite mentality.”[16]

There is good reason to criticize the above named politicians and intellectuals who gave us the “Auschwitz Law.” The “truth paragraph” as the public sarcastically calls Paragraph 130 of the Penal Code, represents nothing less than the government’s silencing of public debate, thereby hindering expression of the public will. It is obviously incompatible with freedom and democracy, since it renduces public debate to absurdity. These ever-increasing special laws, which emanate from the legislative and administrative bodies, expose authors, editors, journalists, publishers and scientists to prosecution for “criminal wrongthinking” on account of the opinions they express. They are clear and indisputable proof of an interruption of freedom of the press, freedom of opinion and freedom of scientific research in the Federal Republic. Following are a few recent examples of this practice in recent times.

Hans-Jürgen Witzsch, a 62-year-old high school teacher of history and social sciences who was also a member of Fürth City Council, was jailed in 2002 and is now barred from his profession. Witsch refused to take his class on school trips to former Concentration Camp Dachau because, according to raumzeit, a newspaper for the Nürnberg-Fürth-Erlangen area, it was his opinion that most or all of the photographs displayed there are montages and fakes. Raumzeit reported Witzsch as saying that the homicidal gas chambers there had been set up by the Americans, who claimed that disinfectant chambers used to delouse clothing and blankets had been used to murder prisoners.[17] In January 2002 the Bavarian Superior District Court rejected Witzsch’s appeal of the verdict of Nürnberg/Fürth District Court.

In the verdict, Witzsch was sentenced to three months in jail for making comments that understated the evil nature of Hitler and the immensity of “Holocaust.” The verdict was appealed by both the prosector, who considered the sentence too light and the defendant, who pled for exoneration. The criminal complaint had arisen from a letter that the teacher wrote to the Jewish historian Michael Wolffsohn in 1999. Among other items that he mentioned was the fact that there is no documentary or empirical evidence to support the allegation that Hitler ordered the murder of Jews. Witzsch observed that the alleged order had been “an invention of postwar atrocity propaganda,” and he also remarked that the number of six million Jews murdered during the Third Reich is also “pure propaganda.”[18] The complaint against Witzsch was not filed by the recipient of his letter, who, a trained academic, responded to Witzsch’s remarks in an objective and professional manner. The complaint had been filed by Arno Hamburger, chairperson of the Israeli Cultural Association in Nürnberg, who stressed the political significance of Witzsch’s letter. Judge Klaus Kriegel considered the complaint valid, even though the letter had not been addressed to Hamburger. In his opinion the letter “defamed the memory of the dead” and therefore Hamburger, either as chairperson of the IKG or as a private individual who had lost relatives in “extermination camps,” was qualified to file a criminal complaint against Witzsch. Kriegel ruled that under Section 189 of Penal Code, the accused had incriminated himself by making untrue allegations that contradicted the official truths. (Section 189: “Whoever disparages the memory of a deceased person shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine.”)

The Court ruled that not only were the allegations of the accused “monstrous and absurd,” they also “mocked the fate of Jews murdered during the Third Reich.”[19] The Bavarian Supreme Court rejected the appeal with a single sentence, finding “no legal errors that might have disadvantaged the accused.”

On 13 January 2003, Attorney Horst Mahler pointed out that under the decree of Offenkundigkeit or “manifest obviousness” as contained in the Basic Law, Germans who deny the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Dachau, like those who had denied their existence at Ravensbrück, Mauthausen, Bergen-Belsen, Flossenbürg, Sachsenhausen and Theresienstadt, have been sentenced to long prison sentences. The concept of Offenkundigkeit, which the Federal Republic borrowed from the Moscow show trials and the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, allows the court or tribunal to convict defendants of without having to prove that a crime occurred. In the case of the alleged mass murders of Jews in homicidal gas chambers, the IMF simply decreed that the existence of such devices for mass murder during the War was “common knowledge” or “manifestly obvious” and therefore did not have to be proven with documentary, empirical or forensic evidence.

Mahler points out: “They (the persons indicted under Sections 130 and 189 of the Penal Code) are all innocent, they are all victims of ‘victors justice.’ It is now generally accepted that homicidal gas chambers never existed within the area of the Reich... We have many individual researchers, including non Germans, to thank for the fact that this revision of anti-German propaganda has now become generally accepted. Many citizens of foreign countries have devoted their lives to privartely researching historical truth, defying the victors who triumphed over Germany. Many others have become acquainted with German prisons from the inside, or else they are forced to live in exile. Some have been physically attacked and severely injured and some have been targets of assassinaation attempts and arson attacks.”[20]

High school instructor Witzsch did not deny that prisoners died in concentration camps, as the daily newspaper Fränkischer Tag erroneously reported.[21] His criminal offense consisted of pointing out that no written order of Hitler has ever been found that related to the murder of a single Jew, much less millions of Jews. Witzsch is correct in this; it must be emphasized here that no such order has ever been found. The forcibly retired academician was not imprisoned because he might possibly be a member of a “rightwing extremist” organization or because he questioned the methodical murder of Jews during the Third Reich. In order to imprison this highly respected member of his community, a “pillar of society,” it was quite enough for the Federal Republic to establish that he had written to Wolffsohn pointing out that historical research had not yet succeeded in finding a directive of Hitler that ordered the murder of Jews.

Such established and esteemed historians as Martin Broszat, Hans Mommsen and Karl Schleunes have arrived at the same conclusion as high school teacher Witzsch. For example, in his response to Daniel Goldhagen’s book Hitler’s Willing Executioners, which enjoyed high official acclaim in the Federal Republic, Mommsen wrote in the Süddeutsche Zeitung on 20 July 1996 that it is very clear “...the Holocaust does not represent any officially planned action. Instead, the systematic mass murders arose from a chain of spectacular mistakes and misunderstandings. Even Heinrich Himmler, in his directive Behandlung der Fremdvölkischen im Osten (The Treatment of Alien Peoples in the East)had excluded any such actions as late as May 1940, “on principle.” As to Hitler’s intentions, we have to rely on assumptions. Even the antifascist book Wahrheit und Auschwitzlüge (Truth and the Auschwitz Lie) published by the Dokumentationsarchiv des Österreichischen Widerstandes (Documentation Archive of Austrian Resistance) in Vienna states, “A written directive by Hitler ordering the extermination of European Jews was probably never given and therefore cannot be found.” This makes the sentencing of Witzsch even more questionable. The monthly news magazine Nation & Europa accurately commented: “With this verdict, freedom of opinion and research, which was already severely limited where Holocaust is concerned, has been reduced to zero.”[22]

This conclusion is confirmed by still another striking incident. In January 2002 Munich Regional Court convicted university student Wolf Andreas Heß, the 23 year old grandson of freedom flyer Rudolf Heß, of “Incitement of the Masses.” Over the Internet, Heß had quoted statements by his father, Wolf Rüdiger Heß, now deceased, to the effect that there were no homicidal gas chambers at Dachau Concentration Camp. Hess had observed that the Dachau museum staff camp even displayed a sign confirming that no one had ever been gassed there. The City of Dachau also attempts to make the matter clear, as they wrote to the author: “In response to your inquiry, I wish to inform you that homicidal gassings did not take place in the former concentration camp at Dachau, although facilities for gas chambers were found there following the War.”[23] This factual statement has repeatedly been confirmed by many other competent sources as well. Above the door of the room now designated “Shower Room” is an explanation placed there many years ago informing museum visitors that the “gas chamber” on display was never put into use. On 1 February 1979 the Dachau Camp Museum sent this letter of explanation to the University of Toronto: “In the crematorium of Dachau Camp a (homicidal) gas chamber was constructed that was never put in operation. In addition, a number of small gas chambers were used for delousing clothing and blankets.”[24]

Here we must avoid playing numbers games or referring to the findings of scientists who are “Revisionists” or “Holocaust Deniers” according to the Federal German courts and the “truth findings” of the “Constitutional Court.” Such scientists are stereotyped as “rightwing extremists.” Their research does not conform to the official official Lehrmeinung (pedagogical theory) and must therefore be rejected as undesirable, regardless of how convincing and well documented it may be. It does not matter if their findings are scientifically irrefutable: we would make ourselves liable to prosecution if we referred to them. This is because in the Federal Republic, most of their writings have been “indexed” or outlawed. The ever-present threat of prosecution is an unmistakable indicator of the degree of democratic maturity in present day Germany, since it depicts the actual extent to which freedoms of opinion and research may be exercised. We hope you will forgive our obligatory self-censorship in not documenting our presentation with the publications of such noted researchers as Ernst Stäglich, Arthur Butz, Germar Rudolf alias Ernst Gauss, Robert Faurisson, Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf oder Friedrich Toben, to name just a few. However, we will dare to quote Joachim Hoffmann, the former scientific director of Militärgeschichtlichen Forschungsamtes der Bundeswehr (Military History Department of the Bundeswehr. In the introduction to his seminal work Stalins Vernichtungskrieg 1941-1945, he refers to Germany’s drastic censorship as “a near total disgrace.” We would simply drop the word “near” from his evaluation. For any free, independent minded and mature person, this censorship is absolutely disgraceful -- and totally unacceptable.

However, there are a number of scientists and researchers who openly state opinions very similar to those of the Revisionists, yet continue to be tolerated by Germany’s opinion cartel and penal code. Ernst Nolte, Ferdinand Otto Mischke and Norman Finkelstein are among the scientists who refuse to allow their independence and professional integrity to be taken away. On numerous occasions, they have proven their courage to contradict the allegations of the powers that be. To an extent, even Michael Wolffsohn can be included in this courageous circle. In January 1991 Wolffsohn engaged in a controversial public debate with the president of the Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland (Central Committee of Jews in Germany) Heinz Galinski on the topic of the number of Jews murdered at Auschwitz. Galinski insisted on the figure of “four million” as decreed by the Nuremberg Military Tribunal in 1946. Wolffsohn on the other hand, referred to the still horrific figure of around 1.3 million, which, he pointed out, is “uncontested” by the scientific community.[25] He pointed out that authentic research is never static: it is constantly changing as new discoveries are made, new insights won, and existing opinions adapted to the new level of knowledge. In short, real history undergoes constant revision. Thus is of course true of research, but it is paticularly true of historical research.

In his research, the Polish historian Franciszek Piper arrived at the estimate of 1.11 million Jewish victims. In 1994 Jean-Claude Pressac, the French consultant to the Polish Auschwitz Museum, estimated the total number of Auschwitz deaths at between 631,000 and 711,000 persons. This followed shortly after the Russian government opened the Moscow Archives to the public, which made the Auschwitz death books available for pubic inspection. In May 2002, Spiegel editor Fritjof Meyer again lowered the estimated number of Auschwitz victims, this time to approximately 510,000. He estimated that around 356,000 were “killed by gas.” His article, entitled Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz. Neue Erkenntnisse durch neue Archivfunde (The Number of Auscwitz Victims: New Evidence from Archival Discoveries ) appeared in the professional journal Osteuropa: Zeitschrift für Gegenwartsfragen des Ostens.

Referring to the research of the Canadian architect Robert-Jan von Pelt, Meyer announced what (for mainstream historians) was a sensational breakthrough: In 1945, the Soviet investigatory commission announced that four million persons had been murdered in the National Socialist labor and extermination camp Auschwitz-Birkenau. This was the product of wartime propaganda. Under coercion, Camp Commandant Höß initially signed a confession stating that three million Jews had been gassed, but he later denied this figure. Until now it has only been possible to roughly estimate the number of victims of this mass murder. The first Holocaust historian, Gerald Reitlinger swas of the opinion that one million had been murdered, while the most recent state of research suggests several hundred thousands fewer. Two new articles based on the capacities of the crematories now confirm existing documents relating to deliveries of prisoners to the camp. With these new publications the actual dimension of that collapse of civilization has finally moved into the realm of the comprehensible. At last, there is a convincing Menetekel (admonition) for those born after the War.”[26]

It remains to be seen whether Meyer’s unorthodox findings will be allowed into the history books; or whether he will face criminal charges of “inciting the masses” or “”dishonoring the memory of the dead.” If his findings are acknowledged, the Auschwitz Museum will once again have to install new memorial plaques. In 1989 the plaques that heretofore had been displayed, lamenting four million victims, were removed and replaced with plaques lamenting one and a half million victims. No official recognizance is made of the best documented research of all, namely that carried out by the International Red Cross in Switzerland. It estimates the number of racial and political deaths in all German prisons and concentration camps at around 300,000.[27] None of these findings by serious and impartial researchers has found its way the mass media, much less schoolbooks and official histories. This does not reflect favorably on the credibility of the present educational establishment. There are exceptions, however, and sometimes from the most unexpected quarter. In his groundbreaking work The Holocaust Industry, the US political scientist Norman G. Finkelstein, who is Jewish, states very clearly (even in the German edition, which is inflated with countless commentaries) what the severely persecuted Revisionists have long maintained: “In view of these considerations, not only is the number of six million even less defensible, but the numbers maintained by the Holocaust Industry itself are rapidly approaching those of the Holocaust Deniers.”[28]

In closing this complex section, we wish to point out a circumstance that is usually neglected or ignored. By persecuting revisionist scientists and sentencing them to heavy fines and prison sentences, it was our German justice officials themselves who first called attention to the school of “Historical Revisionism” and its adherents. Without the criminal prosecutions of many responsible researchers, their teachings would never have gained as much attention as they did. These revisionists did not have the journalistic or publicistic means, much less the financial reserves to reach large segments of the public with the results of their research. Thus, paradoxically, we have in no small measure the German justice system to thank for making Holocaust Revisionism known to the world, and thereby making it a distinct area of research as well.

Congresses of Historical Revisionists with their lectures before institutions of higher learning (such as Pretoria, Teheran, Moscow or Triest) are no longer considered highly unusual. Increasingly, public media report on them with some degree of factuality and objectivity. In its issue of 1 February 2002, Pravda announced that Revisionists from the whole world were holding a “unique forum” in Moscow and described Jürgen Graf’s research as follows: “Jürgen Graf reported that electromagnetic measurements of the soil at former concentration camps at Treblinka and Belzec had scientifically demolished the allegations that mass graves were to be found there... The investigations prove that the ground there is undisturbed.”[29]

Even in the Federal Republic, half the Germans, according to Henryk M. Broder, no longer believe the “court historians.” On 3 August 2001, this prominent Jewish journalist and publicist told the Potsdamer Neuesten Nachrichten: “Some believe the Holocaust happened and others believe the opposite.” In 1999, even Chancellor Gerhard Schröder acknowledged that the neverending rituals of Holocaust veneration annoyed him. Die Welt commented wryly: “...Schröder knows that it enhances the sex appeal of an SPD chancellor if he lets it be known that these eternal remembrances get on his nerves.”[30] The overriding question is: how much longer can the sacrosanct Holocaust Industry survive unquestioned? The answer to this is also the answer to the question of when the foundations of the Federal Republic will collapse.


The Question of Sovereignty

Thomas Dehler, Vice President of the Bundestag, acknowledged in 1961: “The German Reich will disappear when and if the opinion becomes widespread that the Federal Republic is not provisional -- that it is the only German state, identical with the Reich. I am opposed to such a demon.” In 1958, when he was still Minister President of Baden- Württemberg, subsequent Chancellor Kurt Georg Kiesinger made this remark concerning the status of the Federal Republic: “We are in fact a protectorate of the USA.” This was not exactly flattering for the apologists of the Federal Republic, who in those days pretended to be free and sovereign.

Is all this merely the “snows of yesteryear?” Not at all. In his book The Grand Chessboard, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who from 1977 until 1981 was Security Adviser for US President Jimmy Carter and is today Professor of American Foreign Policy at John Hopkins University in Washington, explains that Washington regards most of Europe – but above all the Federal Republic -- as American vassals, obligated to pay tribute, “some of whom some would like all too gladly to be still more closely tied to Washington.”[31] This is good reason to inspect more closely the present status quo. Contrary to what many believe, the German Reich still exists, although it is unable to act under present conditions. As the Bundesverfassungsgericht (“Constitutional Court”) ruled on 31 July 1973, the Reich did not perish in 1945, and the Federal Republic is not a legitimate successor to it. The legal grounds cited in that decision (2 BvF 1/73), which has never been set aside, state the following: “The Basic Law itself, not just some abstract theory of nations and or international law, proceeds from the assumption that the Reich survived the collapse of 1945. Furthermore the Reich did not perish at a later date, either with military capitulation or the exercise of foreign power by Allied occupation forces... The German Reich continues to exist. It still possess its legal capacity and potential, although it is unable to function as a complete state because of a present lack of organization, specifically of institutionalized state departments ... The establishment of the Federal Republic did not create a new West German state, it merely reorganized a part of Germany. Therefore, the Federal Republic is not the ‘legal successor’ to the Reich... Its sovereignty is legally limited to the Geltungsbereich des Grundgesetzes (geographical realm of jurisdiction the Basic Law).”

There can be no doubt this ruling continues valid for the Berlin Republic (the government that has existed since the reunification of Central and West Germany.) This is because the geographic jurisdiction of the Basic Law does not include the entirety of the German Reich."[32]

In view of all this, can the Federal Republic of Germany even exist legally? The present Berlin Republic or “BRDDR” as it is increasingly called, dismisses the question of its legality as obvious and self evident. It is clear that in 1990 the area of the German Democratic Republic joined the area of the Federal Republic. This joining or annexation took place on the basis of a complex of treaties under which, in official explanations of the Berlin Republic, the postwar era was concluded and Germany restored to full sovereignty.

A classic peace treaty was thus made irrelevant and the necessity of concluding such a treaty overtaken by political events. At any rate, that is what the Berlin Republic states in its official declarations. It ignores the fact that the Germany enlarged by the area of the former German Democratic Republic is still not Germany, however. Its claims about regaining sovereignty cannot withstand close scrutiny.

The so-called “Two Plus Four Treaty” is generally viewed as the principal treaty between the four victorious powers of the Second World War and the two provisional German partial-states, the Federal Republic of Germany and Democratic Republic of Germany. Under the terms of this treaty, Germany is supposed to have regained full sovereignty, according to Article 7 (2): “By the terms of this treaty, a united Germany has full domestic and international sovereignty over its domestic and foreign affairs.” For the citizen of normal intelligence, this phrasing would clearly indicate that no occupation regulations of any kind could continue in effect.

The informed reader is reminded of the socalled Überleitungsvertrag (Transitional Treaty) of 1954, officially called the Vertrag zur Regelung aus Krieg und Besatzung entstandener Fragen (Treaty for Regulation of Questions Resulting from War and Occupation.) This occupation treaty, which provided the basis for continuing Allied occupation in the Federal Republic, originally had 12 parts. Of the original parts, Parts II, VIII and XI were omitted in the version signed on 23 October 1954 because they had already been dropped. Consequently, the Transitional Treaty contained 9 parts with a total of 83 articles and 224 paragraphs containing the current Allied directives. As long as this treaty continued in effect in its entirety, that is, until September 1990, despite the pretensions by representatives of the Federal Republic, one could not speak real sovereignty of the Federal Republic. The politicians, teachers, docents and representatives of the media, who for decades had been pretending that the Federal Republic was a sovereign country, had either been acting against their better judgment or else were ignorant of the terms of the treaty. In order for the Federal Republic to achieve full sovereignty under international law, it would have been necessary in 1990 to clearly state that the Transitional Treaty and all its directives were no longer in effect. This is not what happened.

Neither the agreement of 12 September 1990 on the Vertrag zur Regelung aus Krieg und Besatzung entstandener Fragen (Treaty on the Regulation of Questions Relating to War and Occupation – amended version, also called the “Two Plus Four Treaty”) nor the agreement of 27 and 28 September 1990 on the Vertrag über die Beziehung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und den Drei Mächten (Treaty Concerning the Relationship of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Three Powers -- amended version), revoked the 1954 Agreement (Treaty for the Regulation of Questions Resulting from War and Occupation or Transitional Treaty) in its entirety. Point 1 specified that the Allied directives are suspended and no longer in force -- with exception of what is specified in Point 3 (of the Transitional Treaty of 1954.)

This startling exception reads as follows: “... The following directives of the Transitional Treaty shall remain in effect, however:

“Part I: Article 1, Paragraph 1, Points 1 (’Procedure for rescinding or amending legal regulations’ as well as Paragraghs 3, 4 and 5; Article 2, Paragraph 1; Article 3, Paragraphs 2 and 3; Article 5, Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5; Article 7, Paragraph 1; Article 8;
Part III: Article 3, Paragraph 5, no. a of appendix; Article 6, Paragraph 3 of appendix
Part VI: Article 3, Paragraphs 1 and 3;
Part VII: Articles 1 and 2;
Part IX: Article 1;
Part X: Article 4.

This is by no means a complete list of all the significant and highly sensitive limitations on Germany’s sovereignty. In addition to these specific limitations, Point 4c of the agreement of September 1990 specifies that the suspensions of other parts of the Transitional Treaty as enumerated in Point 1 of the agreement “does not diminish the necessity for Germany’s continuing observance of certain other obligations.” How can anyone speak of a “suspension” of the Agreement of 1954 when the Agreement of 1990 specifies that the fundamental directives of 1954 remain in force? The Auswärtiges Amt (equivalent of the US State Department) explains that the Federal Republic is bound by the earlier “international obligations” with no resultant “diminution of the present full sovereignty of the Federal Republic.”[33] Is such an explanation logically comprehensible?

Hans-Peter Thietz, a former representative in the last freely elected Volkskammer (People’s Chamber) of the German Democratic Republic and representative in the European Parliament, discusses this question at length in his treatment Souveräner Staat oder noch immer unter Besatzungsrecht? (Sovereign State or Still Under Occupation Law?), which is indespensible reading on the subject.[34]

In order to explain the immense significance of the above mentioned treaties, we must specify here the directives that have remained in force. Part 1 of Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Transitional Treaty of 1954 reads as follows: “All laws and obligations that have been established or decreed through legislative measures, court orders or administrative directives of the Allied agencies are in force and shall remain in force in all respects under German law, regardless of whether they are in agreement with other legal directives that may be issued or determined. Without exception these (Allied) laws and obligations shall take precedence over legislative, court or administrative measures, as well as similar laws and obligations based on domestic German law or (subsequently) established or determined laws and obligations.” In view of this directive, it is very obvious that the basic directives of occupation law are still in effect.
In plain language, this article means that Allied occupation measures that were decreed for Germany under earier occupation law continue in effect, regardless of whether they are compatible with present German policies and legal system. It means that in future as in the past, German policies must accomodate and adhere to Allied (American) occupation directives. The continuing applicability of the above quoted article, as well as other articles of the Transitional Treaty, proves that the Berlin Republic will continue to be subordinated to former occupation directives, whose duration is unlimited.

This sobering acknowledgment is further evidenced by an additional fact. Article 1 of Part Nine, which also continues in effect, reads as follows: “Unless provided for in the provisions of a peace agreement with Germany, no citizen of Germany who is subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Republic may raise any claims of any sort against the countries that signed the Declaration of the United Nations of 1 January 1942; or joined and supported it; or were at war with Germany; or are named in Article 5 of the 5th Part of this treaty. Furthermore, no citizen of Germany who is subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Republic may raise any claims of any sort against the citizens of these countries on account of measures that were taken by the governments of these countries or under their authority during the period between 1 September 1939 and 5 June 1945, on account of the condition of war that existed in Europe. Furthermore, no one shall be allowed to make such claims before any court of the Federal Republic.”

Part 6, Article 3, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Transitional Treaty go on to state: “(1) The Federal Republic will in future raise no objections against measures that have been carried out against German foreign assets or any other German assets; or that shall be carried out against such assets in future; or against assets that have been confiscated for purposes of reparations or restitution; or on account of a state of war; or agreements that the Three Powers have concluded or will conclude with other Allied countries, neutral states or former allies of Germany... (3) Claims and complaints will not be allowed against any persons who have acquired or transferred property on the basis of the measures indicated in Paragraph (1) and (2) of this article. Likewise, claims and complaints will not be allowed against international organizations, foreign governments or persons who have acted on instructions of these organizations or governments.”

These legal declarations mean that the victorious powers have placed themselves beyond all legal responsibilities for their actions. Thus they can never be charged with their own wartime atrocities and terroristic acts, even though in the Nürnberg trials they they punished Germans for these same real or alleged crimes, and continue to prosecute and punish them to this day. The unsurpassed atrocities of the infernos that were deliberately created by carpet bombings and fire bombings of German cities such as Dresden, Köln and Hamburg with hundreds of thousands of innocent victims among refugees, women and children at the end of the War, or the Allies’ flagrant violations of international law committed against millions of German prisoners of war and ethnically cleansed persons after the conclusion of the war, cannot be legally prosecuted under the present government. Those who sided with the Allies especially Czechs, Poles, and Slovenes have especially good reason to rejoice: Nothing stands in the way of their joining the European Union. They cannot be brought to justice for their crimes under the present status quo. And Berlin will not veto the anticipated entrance into the EU by Poland, the Czech Republic or Slovenia.

In fact, Berlin cannot exercise such a veto. This is because the formulation at the end of Article 3, Paragraph 1, “...have completed or will complete” means that the victorious powers still, and for an unlimited period in the future, will continue to be allowed to confiscate and seize German assets in foreign countries, or any other assets for purposes of “...reparations, restitution or any other war related reason” (or pretext) and even have the right, in furtherance of this goal, to continue passing additional special measures in future. At present, the Germans are unable even to raise objections to these outrageous measures by the victorious powers. In the present situation they can only themselves to this situation, since the first sentence of Article 1 expressly states, “The Federal Republic will raise no objections...”

Today, more than 60 years after the ceasefire, we Germans are still living de facto under a great many continuing occupation measures of the the victorious Allies. As a result, Federal German policies are to a great extent established by foreign powers, as we will demonstrate in the following chapter, with reference to the USA and Israel. In addition to everything else, the thus far uncontested validity of the UNO “Enemy Country” clauses provides additional proof that Germany, in response to official political calls for the conclusion of a peace treaty, simply cannot refrain from them. Otherwise, the present situation would continue in effect indefinitely. The “enemy country” provisions of the United Nations charter (Articles 53 and 107) allow the victors of World War II to take “forceful measures” against the “enemy countries” Germany and Japan, even without approval of the Security Council. The result is that, under international law and according to United Nations criteria, the Federal Republic continues to be an “enemy country.”

Around the end of September 2002, the well known US liberal journalist Richard Reeves shocked his naive contemporaries by posing the rather odd question, “Is it time to invade Germany again? It was a question that Reeves asked seriously as well as sarcastically. Proceeding from the supposition that the United States has the divine mission of bringing to reason those countries and eliminating the statesmen that the US does not like, or who fail to do as they are told, Reeves expressed misgivings about Germany, which was not showing sufficient enthusiasm for the Iraq war. In other words, Germany was not doing what the US expected it to do. He pointed out that bringing about regime change in Irak was easy enough, but doing the same thing in Germany was more difficult since “In Germany, we may have to get rid of tens of millions of voters who defied our warnings and re-elected Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his Social Democrats. Schroeder and his ilk were returned to power in Berlin after he said the United States must be nuts to want to invade Iraq – and good Germans should have nothing to with that.”[35]

Finally, since the end of the 1990s, Washington has been developing plans to intervene militarily in friendly countries such as France, the Benelux Nations and the Federal Republic in case the “domestic situation” in these countries should “make it necessary.” Such a “domestic situation” might be, for example, electoral victories by the French National Front or acts of violence against foreigners in Flanders or Brandenburg.

This article is based on extracts from the relevant book written by the author. See chapter 4 of Der Angriff (The Assault), published in Tübingen in 2003.

Translated by James Damon.
© Dr. Claus Nordbruch, authorized version
FOOTNOTES


[1]Auswärtiges Amt - Startseite

[2]“Vierzig Jahre Jugendwahn”. (Interview mit Johannes Rau). – in: Die Zeit, 12 Dec.2002.

[3] Walter Lippmann quoted in Die Welt, 20 Nov 1982.

[4] Quoted in Anweisungen 1945 für die Re-education in Nation & Europa, Vol. 8/1958, p. 10.
Secondary literature constantly refers to this text. The author has been unable to verify with certainty whether it is authentic or not. Without doubt, several passages were taken from Louis Nizer’s What to do with Germany, which appeared in 1944. The author suspects that the Guidelines are identical with portions of Nizer’s book, 100,000 copies of which Gen. Eisenhower is known to have distributed within the US Army. He required his officers to write essays on the book. If this suspicion is correct the text should be read with caution, since peculiar interpretations are often to be found in the various German translations.
In particular, the last paragraph of the quoted text could not be found. The author has a copy of the original edition of Nizer’s book, but he has so far been unable to find a copy of the “Guidelines.” Detailed enquiries with media, universities and the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich as well as research institutes for contemporary history in Ingolstadt have thus far produced no satisfactory answers.

[5] All quotations taken from Claus Nordbruch’s Sind Gedanken noch frei? Zensur in Deutschland (Is there still freedom of thought? Censorship in Germany.) Munich, 2001, pp. 41-

[6] diplo - Startseite - HTTP Status 404

[7] diplo - Startseite - HTTP Status 404

[8] Georg Franz-Willing: Vergangenheitsbewältigung. – Coburg 1992, S. 60.

[9] See Claus Nordbruch: Sind Gedanken noch frei?, where this aspect is more thoroughly discussed.

[10] Human Rights Watch (Hrsg.): Human Rights Watch World Report 1995.Events of 1994. – New York 1995, p. 209.

[11] Quoted from Junge Freiheit, 16 Dec 1994.

[12] See Max Güdes: Die Verwirrung unseres Staatsschutzrechtes. - in: Max Güdes (u.a.): Zur Verfassung unserer Demokratie. – op. cit., 1978, p. 28.

[13] Gottfried Dietze: Ein Schritt zurück in polizeistaatliche Intoleranz. – in: Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, Heft 3/1998, S. 221.

[14] The author has treated this complex in detail. See Claus Nordbruch: Der deutsche Aderlaß, op. cit., pp. 419.

[15] See the postscript by Herbert Speidel in Heinz Nawratil: Der Kult mit der Schuld, op. cit., p. 239.

[16] Ibid., p. 256.

[17] “Oberlehrer muß in den Knast.” – in: raumzeit, Nr. 13/Februar 2002.

[18] Gudrun Bayer: Ex-Lehrer ins Gefängnis. – in: Nürnberger Nachrichten, 20 Aug 2002.

[19] Witzsch muß jetzt einsitzen. – in: Nürnberger Nachrichten v. 2 Aug 2002.

[20] Grounds for appeal listed by defense attorney Horst Mahler, Berlin, 13 Jan 2003, in the case of Frank Rennicke, Landgericht Stuttgart, 38 Ns 6 Js 88181/98, p. 197.

[21] “Lehrer leugnet KZ-Opfer – drei Monate Haft.” Fränkischer Tag, 20 Aug 2002.

[22] Fritz Stenzel: “Streit um Hitler-Befehl.” Nation & Europa, Heft 3/2002, p. 59.

[23] Stadt Dachau, Zeichen: 4.2/Ra/Se, 28 Jan 1988.

[24] Dachau Concentation Camp, Zeichen: 55/79 di/mg dated 1 Feb 1979. The English text reads: In the crematorium of the Dachau camp a gas chamber was installed which was never used. In addition, there were in the crematorium several small rooms which were used to disinfect clothing.

[25] Michael Wolffsohn: “Alles hat seine Zeit.” Die Welt, 26 Feb 1994.

[26] Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz. – in: Osteuropa, Heft 5/2002, S. 631.

[27] See Cannstatter Zeitung, 12 May 1956.

[28] Norman G. Finkelstein: Die Holocaust-Industrie. – München/Zürich 2001, S. 133.

[29] Organizations having a distorted relationship to opinion, information, research and freedom of assembly react very differently. For example, when in mid December a Revisionist Congress was announced in Triest, the Simon Wiesenthal Center of New York slandered the meeting as an “international Neonazi hatefest” and urged the Italian authorities “...to move against any such suspects who enter the country and are fugitives from the law. They should be promptly deported to the democracies where they are sought for trial.” The Wiesenthal Center urged the government to “take all necessary measures to ban this gathering that, if allowed to take place, would aid and abet the forces of terrorism, racism and antisemitism.

[30] Die Welt, 17 Aug 1999, p. 3.

[31] Zbigniew Brzezinski: Die einzige Weltmacht. Amerikas Strategie der Vorherrschaft. – Weinheim/Berlin 1997, pp. 41--.

[32] The answer to the question / is problematic / question of who is internationally authorized / to sign / the long overdue peace treaty / for the German side.
In this regard / there have / recently / various interest groups / made comments / mor or less anspruchsvoll. On this subject see www.deutsches-kolleg.de, www.kommissarische-reichsregierung, www.deutsches-reich.de.

[33] Letter from Auswärtigen Amtes (gez. Tietz) dated 20 Feb 2002 to Axel Michaelis.

[34] UN - 404

[35] Richard Reeves: Is it time to invade ... Germany? – in: The Gainsville Sun, 29 September 2002: In Germany, we may have to get rid of tens of millions of voters who defied our warnings and re-elected Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his Social Democrats. Schroeder and his ilk were returned to power in Berlin after (perhaps because) he said the United States must be nuts to want to invade Iraq – and good Germans should have nothing to with that.«







30 novembre 2010
NULLITÉ DU JUGEMENT DU TRIBUNAL DE NUREMBERG
par René-Louis BERCLAZ
Le charnier de la forêt de Katyn, près de Smolensk, en Russie, a été découvert par les Allemands en 1943

Dans les jugements qui condamnent les historiens révisionnistes, le jugement du Tribunal de Nuremberg, en 1946, sert de référence juridique aux tribunaux actuels. On considère en effet comme un dogme que tous les faits pour lesquels les accusés du procès de Nuremberg ont été condamnés ont eu lieu, bien qu’aucune enquête scientifique n’ait été menée à l’époque pour prouver l’existence de chambres à gaz dans les camps nazis. René-Louis Berclaz attire notre attention sur les conséquences juridiques d’une décision révisionniste du parlement russe.
Les mains liées d’une victime du massacre de Katyn


En date du 26 novembre 2010, la Douma (le parlement de Russie) a officiellement reconnu que le massacre de Katyn, en avril 1940 [exécution de 4000 officiers polonais capturés par les Soviétiques après l’invasion de la Pologne, en 1939], avait été ordonné par Staline lui-même et que l’Union soviétique était seule responsable de ce crime de guerre. Or, le jugement du Tribunal militaire international de Nuremberg, sans pour autant disculper l’Allemagne accusée à tort de ce crime de guerre par le procureur soviétique, le général Rudenko (document URSS-54), avait occulté l’identité du véritable coupable, à savoir l’Union soviétique elle-même (1). A l’évidence, le Tribunal de Nuremberg ne pouvait se permettre de juger l’un de ses membres sans se contredire et se disqualifier. Pourtant, en 1943 déjà, la commission d’enquête neutre dirigée par le professeur Naville, expert médecin légiste de Genève, avait conclu à la culpabilité des Soviétiques. Injustice et forfaiture, sept prisonniers de guerre allemands furent même pendus, à Leningrad, par les Soviétiques, en 1946, pour avoir, soi-disant, participé aux exécutions de Katyn.
Le cadavre d’une victime du massacre de Katyn

Il est de notoriété publique que le jugement du Tribunal militaire international siégeant à Nuremberg de 1945 à 1946, tribunal constitué par les anciennes puissances alliées (Etats-Unis, Grande-Bretagne, France, Union soviétique) pour juger l’Allemagne vaincue, fonde en droit les lois de censure et de répression qui ont érigé la Shoah en dogme historique indiscutable. En reconnaissant la culpabilité soviétique dans le massacre de Katyn, la Douma de Russie a implicitement prononcé la nullité du jugement de Nuremberg. On ne peut être juge et partie. Il est de même inconcevable qu’une juridiction, en l’occurrence le Tribunal militaire international, puisse ignorer et même couvrir, en toute connaissance de cause, un crime de guerre perpétré par l’un de ses membres et qu’ensuite un tel jugement soit reconnu par un Etat de droit, et ceci indiscutablement quand l’auteur du crime, juge et partie, en fait officiellement l’aveu. La chaîne de causalité, qui va du tribunal de Nuremberg aux tribunaux actuels jugeant et condamnant des révisionnistes contestant le jugement de Nuremberg, a donc été brisée par ceux-là même qui l’avaient forgée.
René-Louis BERCLAZ
Le box des accusés au procès de Nuremberg

1) « Lorsque la conférence commença, Biddle [juge américain] déclara que la demande de Rudenko [document URSS-54] était si arrogante et si calomnieuse qu’aux Etats-Unis ʺl’auteur d’un tel document serait poursuivi pour outrage à magistratʺ et qu’il fallait peut-être envoyer Rudenko ʺen prison séance tenanteʺ. »
Source : http://www.phdn.org/histgen/katynnu... (page 5 )





German-Jews Against International Atrocity Propaganda (1933)

Our Struggle for Germany Against the Atrocity Propaganda from abroad

(translation of original German-Jewish Magazine article)

“The columns of a certain foreign press is filled with reports of alleged atrocities of the German national survey also against German Jews. The German National Socialist press reported the news, pointing to excerpts with the evidence, that all these sick, disparaging, insulting and anti-German publications, saying these were the works of Jewish origin. In dramatic fashion, reacting to the horrific reports of the foreign media,  the German press followed suit with increasingly threatening protests, in a dangerous interaction.

With the worsening tensions culminating in the highest of drama,  knots were tied in Germany’s foreign policy, as well as,  for German Jewry.  An open and honest word, spoken by the leaders of foreign Governments beyond our borders, might have dispelled the whole nightmare quickly and changed world opinion about Germany, and would thereby, have eased the tensions, and mitigated or lifted the pressure brought to bear upon the German Jews.
Efforts of huge proportions have put German Jews in this situation. We became only slowly aware, as a result of insufficient information, the extent to which the atrocity reports had made an impression on public opinion around the world: we Jews are unfortunately used to that,  as the Anti-Jewish press misrepresents many facts,  presenting Judaism in a poor light; but that serious Jewish figures and organizations of foreign countries believed in these atrocities, and therefore, proceeded to actions against Germany, as was evident in the major newspapers. The Central Association, recognized that German Judaism, once again, as so often before, and which is closely connected with the German national issues, had to take this matter in its own hand.
Therefore, the Central Association on 24 March, provided the German and the world press, the following declaration:
“The Central Association of German Citizens of the Jewish Faith, which is the largest organization of the 565,000 German Jews on patriotic German soil, makes the following statement regarding the events of the last days:
Following press reports in German papers, which were then disseminated by various foreign newspapers, which claimed that mutilated Jewish corpses were found at the entrance to the Jewish cemetery Berlin-Weißensee, and that Jewish girls in public places had been forcibly rounded up, and that hundreds of German Jews had arrived in Geneva, including many children, nine tenths of which were severely abused. All such claims are completely fictitious. The Central Association emphatically states that for such irresponsible distortions, which we strongly condemn, German Judaism cannot be held responsible.
For weeks now, the German people finds itself in a political reversal of epic proportions. This has resulted in instances of political acts of revenge and has also led to violence against Jews. The Government of the Reich, as the state governments, have striven successfully, and as quickly as possible, to restore calm and order. The command of the Reichs-Chancellor, to refrain from individual actions, has been effective.
We have been met with certain obvious anti-Semitic objectives in the various economic and living areas in recent times, which give us serious concern. The Central Association still regards this struggle as a German domestic matter. We are, however, convinced that the equality of the German Jews, who have also earned this, both in wartime and peace, by the shedding of their blood and with their deeds domestically, will not again be lifted, and that they are, as before, inextricably connected with the German Fatherland, and that they, along with all other Germans of good will, will be able to work together, as in the past, for the advancement of the Fatherland.”
Hours later this statement was printed in hundreds of German and foreign newspapers, especially in England and America. Thus, the first dam was erected against the flood of atrocity stories, in defense of the honour of Germany. The foreign-interested parties of the atrocity propaganda were thereby put on notice that there was serious opposition to their Anti-German campaign, and so, for a short time, they intensified their campaign against Germany. A concentrated action of the German Jewry undertook these efforts. A compilation of the declarations, which we provide elsewhere in this paper, provide an overview. But a number of direct measures undertaken by the Central Association in partnership with other Jewish organizations in England and America were far more effective than these declarations. Personalities with non-partisan insights, within English and American Judaism and their leaders in the field of communications of these countries received information directly from the Central Association.
First and foremost, the Central Association directed its efforts at the planned mass meetings in New York on 27 March, to effect a repeal. But because the time was short, this was effort was unsuccessful, and so an attempt was made to curb the hateful tendency of the speeches and speakers towards Germany. Thus, most of them were people of various religions, parties and ideologies providing only expressions of a feeling of community, to discuss how people of the most diverse religions, parties and world views, throughout history and in all nations together, have at times have failed to respect or have prohibited those of other faiths, from the free expression of their faith, beliefs and views.
It must be described as very fortunate that Ernst Wallach, one of the Deputy of Chairmen of the Central Association was in New York City for a few days. He, who was best known in the official German circles of America, campaigned with the highest energy against the atrocity propaganda. In closest consultation with the German officials, he undertook of his own accord, a series of steps, including by cable telegrams and overseas phone calls, bringing about a stark reduction of public opinion pressure regarding the (alleged) dangers for German Judaism. Interviews, he gave to the big American newspapers in New York, were reprinted in numerous German papers and on Monday (27th) formed, so to speak, the first bright spot in an otherwise very gloomy atmosphere. And with a sigh of relief and great satisfaction, the German public learned of the success of the actions of the Central Association and its friends in this urgent situation, in both the press reports and radio broadcasts on Tuesday. Even now, Ernst Wallach continues his efforts to detoxify the American public, regarding its thinking, with respect to Germany.
At the same time, another Deputy Chairman of the Central Association, Dr. Ludwig Tietz worked with the approval of the competent German authorities in England. It is exciting to observe now, how the English press, in light of truthful information from day to day, behaves more civilly towards Germany. But the limits of other possible efforts for German Judaism and all of the Fighters for Truth within Germany and abroad, lie there where the atrocity propaganda, born out of the alleged Jewish experience, is only a backdrop for the enforcement of Anti-Germanic foreign policy or economic actions. With people of sincere ethical intentions, but who have been falsely informed, and have thereby wrongly taken a position against Germany, one can now reach understanding on the basis of truth. and one can sense a conversion on moral basis. But with the “special interest groups” for whom other values and considerations are at stake in this game, other than the existence of ten or even a hundred-thousand German Jews or the Jewish existence in Germany, nothing can be achieved by these means. This is where the possibilities of German Jewry ends.
And now it is being asked of us German Jews, that we be stronger than these powers, and that we should help prevent anti-German propaganda, by those which promote it for their own interests. One has created a fiction, as if the secret backers and beneficiaries of these Anti-German campaigns are Jews, and as if such a bond of unity and inter-dependency amongst the Jews of the world exists, and as if with a wink of an eye, Judaism in any individual country, could cause all Jews to suddenly do something, or not do something, which would be useful to, or detrimental to, another country. This “World Jewry International” does not exist!
But one can compare – It is now nearly twenty years since the beginning of World War I brought about an outrageous baiting and atrocity propaganda campaign against the German people. No vulgarity, no opprobrium was mean and shameful enough, which would not be introduced to the world as German character trait. The German counter-propaganda campaign gave out millions and millions to uproot this propaganda. Dozens of agents of the German Government tried in every place and position, by establishing newspapers, sending out millions of pamphlets and flyers regarding the truth about Germany. Their success was very minimal because the interests of those warmongering nations demanded that the atrocity stories be believed.
It is probably already forgotten now that after the war [first world war], when only a few years had passed, that the British Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons conceded that the “mutilation of bodies” in Germany story was a ‘war lie’. And here we are talking about the German Volk, a community of 65 million, with all imaginable intelligence and propaganda outlets, and with a huge diplomatic and press apparatus. For many years, this enormous array of strength, spirit and money had to be used to fight against the atmosphere of hatred towards Germany.
And one must be clear that of the 565,000 German-Jews, of which at least 95 percent certainly had no “foreign connections”, knew no foreign languages, and had no foreign newspapers to read, could suddenly act maliciously against Germany when they were unable to achieve for themselves in eight days, that which took the entire German Volk eight years to achieve for themselves.
Here lies a so obvious error of judgment and injustice, of which we are convinced, that it should be emphasized, in order to remove this argument from any anti-Jewish agitation.”
(End)
The documents of our foreign activities are summarized in a memorandum, which we gladly provide our members upon request.
C.V. -newspaper, vintage 1933, volume/issue 13, article by 30.3.1933, S. 2f = 106f.
Jews for Germany 1933 part1 Jews for Germany 1933 part 2
(Translation by ‘Justice for Germans’)
The above is posted in relation to my previous post:  World War II started in 1933!
RELATED and highly recommend reading:  Under Two Flags – A German Jew Speaks Out About Hitler and NS Germany by Heinz Weichardt
“Under Two Flags”, an important personal testimonial along the same lines as Benjamin H. Freedman’s “A Jewish Defector Warns America”. It is the story of a German Jew who told the truth about Hitler, National Socialism, the Nuremberg Laws, NS policies, and World War II, from his own personal experience. Though subject to these laws, he had no bitterness towards Hitler. This is a long, but very fascinating and enlightening essay of over 30 pages, but I will provide an excerpt here.
Weichardt stated:
“What was the situation of the German Jews at that point? The first blow came from abroad. World Jewry declared war on Germany. This was no idle threat. It is true that the Jews at that time did not control the most powerful army in the world as in our day when they exert nearly total domination over the deployment of forces of the United States. But neither did the Germans possess an army which could become a threat to anybody somewhat larger than Grenada or maybe Panama. Germany faced the most disastrous economical condition in its history and was completely dependent on foreign trade in order just to feed the population. Any successful boycott of its foreign trade would greatly exacerbate this already dangerous situation and could even lead to widespread starvation. At first the German reaction to riotous, Jewish-led, anti-German demonstrations abroad was a government-decreed one day (!) boycott of Jewish stores which had been marked overnight with stars of David. Never at any time, neither then nor today, did National Socialists mark Jewish properties of any kind with swastikas, because this would be considered a desecration of their revered symbol. The most astonishing result of this boycott was the revelation of the unbelievably large number of big and small businesses in Jewish hands. Had the German- Jewish community voiced a unanimous and vociferous protest against the action of their co-religionists throughout the world, they would have avoided, in my opinion, some of the harsher measures soon to come.
(Emphasis added)
My Comments:
In the article (above) I found the comment  ”World Jewry International does not exist!” most interesting, as there appears to be so much evidence for it, as shown in my previous post “World War II started in 1933″.   There is no doubt that the program of National Socialism posed a serious (mortal) threat to the interests of the “International Bankers” who all describe themselves as being “Jewish”!  So that statement, in conjunction with the comments of Heinz Weichardt, causes me to ask:  could it be that a small group of self-described “Jewish” Internationals Bankers invested a lot of time and resources in an elaborate ‘PsyOp’ to convince the world (including other Jews) that (1) it does exist, in order to (2) foster Zionism, as a tool, creating anti-Jewish hatred and reprisals (as a reaction) against Jews of lower status (to which they themselves, by virtue of the wealth, status and influence  would be immune),  in order to (3) create enmity and to embroil the world once again in war, as in WWII, and (4) to create perpetual conflict in the future, from which they would reap huge perpetual profits and even greater political control?
All of the above, of course, also brings up the question of  ”Zionism and the Third Reich”.  Many assert that “Hitler was a Rothschild” (or their agent), that “Hitler was a Jew”, that “Hitler created Israel”.  All of which is totally FALSE, as I have shown in previous posts,  but I will have more on the topic of Zionism  in my next post!
Bunny Truth 03
Posted in Economics, Germany, Hitler, National Socialism, NSDAP, Policies, Uncategorized, World War II | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment









Traque du mal 25.00EUR

Guy Walters

Au lendemain de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, des dizaines de criminels nazis de haut rang, responsables de la mort de centaines de milliers d’innocents, ont réussi à échapper à la justice alliée et à disparaître dans la nature : les plus tristement célèbres d’entre eux s’appelaient Klaus Barbie, Adolf Eichmann, Josef Mengele ou encore Franz Stangl. Bénéficiant de complicités innombrables, passant d’un nom d’emprunt à l’autre, ils sont parvenus à se cacher en Europe, puis à fuir en Amérique latine, où ils ont longtemps vécu une vie... plutôt paisible. Comment ces hommes ont-ils pu échapper à leurs poursuivants, chasseurs de nazis, services secrets occidentaux et agences de tout poil ? Pour reconstituer leur fuite, Guy Walters a enquêté des années durant, fouillant les archives, interviewant des témoins, anciens officiers des services secrets ou chasseurs de nazis encore vivants. Il raconte quasiment au jour le jour l’évasion de ces débris sanglants du Ille Reich, le rôle joué par différentes filières à Rome, en Angleterre et en Espagne notamment pour les héberger et leur fournir des faux papiers ; au passage, il met à mal la mythique organisation Odessa, qui n’a existé que dans l’imagination de quelques agents triples et de romanciers inspirés. Il montre comment, pendant des décennies, ni les Alliés ni les Israéliens ne se sont vraiment préoccupés de capturer les nazis en fuite - or certains figuraient sous leur vrai nom dans l’annuaire téléphonique des pays où ils avaient trouvé refuge. Dans ce tableau d’un amateurisme parfois confondant, apparaissent d’authentiques chasseurs de nazis, mais aussi des hommes dont Walters met en doute l’efficacité et, plus grave, la sincérité : sur le plus connu d’entre eux, Simon Wiesenthal, il a mené une enquête fouillée, dont les résultats sont accablants pour celui qui clamait avoir fait arrêter plus de mille nazis...

510 p.

VIDEO - Spingola Sand VKC on Mengele Myths and More

Croisade des démocraties. 1939-1950  9.00EUR

Crimes de guerre. Crimes contre l'humanité, 1939-1950. Éléments de bibliographie

Jean-François Deverdon


Sur la « Croisade des Démocraties « [selon le mot d’Eisenhower] menée en Europe par les Alliés entre 1939 et 1945, sur les crimes de guerre commis tant par les Anglo-américains que par les Soviétiques — soigneusement occultés depuis soixante ans —, et sur les souffrances terribles subies durant le conflit par les populations civiles européennes, le lecteur francophone, chercheur ou simple curieux, ne dispose trop souvent que de sources fragmentaires ou insuffisamment fiables. Cette brochure veux servir à combler cette lacune. Elle contient une bibliographie annotée sur cet ensemble de sujets sensibles ; une bibliographie volontairement restreinte, qui recense nombre d’ouvrages, provenant de sources les plus diverses, contemporains des événements, ou issus de la recherche historique récente.

36 p.



La Face cachée des GI's 10.50EUR

Les viols commis par des soldats américains en France, en Angleterre et en Allemagne pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale (1942-1945)

J. Robert Lilly


L'image du valeureux GI propagée après la Seconde Guerre mondiale est trop belle pour être vraie. La participation de « la plus glorieuse génération qu'aucune société ait jamais engendrée » à la victoire de 1945 se double en effet d'une odieuse face cachée, l'un des comportements les moins héroïques et les plus brutaux dont un soldat puisse se rendre coupable : le viol.
À partir d'archives des tribunaux militaires américains inexploitées depuis plus de soixante ans, J. Robert Lilly estime que, entre 1942 et 1945, environ 17 000 femmes et enfants auraient été victimes de viols commis par des soldats américains en Angleterre, en France et en Allemagne.
Pièces à l'appui, il dresse la typologie de ces viols, explique leur déroulement, fait le portrait des violeurs et de leurs victimes et donne à entendre leur voix, ainsi que celle des procureurs et des avocats. Il cherche enfin à comprendre pourquoi les schémas de viols, mais aussi les sanctions militaires, ne furent pas les mêmes d'un pays à l'autre.

372 p. Format poche.


L'Épuration, 1944-1949 22.00EUR

Pierre-Denis Boudriot

À la Libération, avant que les cours de justice et chambres civiques soient créées, et à la faveur de mouvements de foule, résistants et populations s’en prennent aux collaborateurs ou considérés comme tels. La collaboration féminine est sanctionnée par la tonte des cheveux et l’exhibition dans les rues, les coupables étant accusées de collaboration horizontale. L’épuration «extrajudiciaire» entraînera quant à elle la mort d’environ 9000 personnes. Par la suite, un cadre juridique prend le relais de ces exécutions sommaires. Il s’exercera par l’entremise de tribunaux d’exception, et traitera plus de 300000 dossiers, dont 97000 entraîneront des condamnations, les peines s’échelonnant de 5 ans de «dégradation nationale» à des peines de détention, jusqu’à la peine capitale. Au total, environ 2000 français supplémentaires seront exécutés. Le gouvernement de la République votera ensuite trois amnisties, en 1947, 1951 et 1953. Longtemps l’épuration a été un tabou dans la mémoire collective. Cet ouvrage inédit, fruit d’un long travail de recherche, se fonde sur une bibliographie approfondie, mais aussi sur une trentaine de témoignages directs, du camp de Drancy à la prison de Fresnes, de la caserne de Saint-Denis et du fort de Romainville, au sujet desquels les informations demeuraient encore rares.

346 p.




L'Épuration sauvage, 1944-1945 24.50EUR

Philippe Bourdrel

Cette refonte en un volume des deux tomes de L’Épuration sauvage parus en 1988 et 1991 a nécessité une véritable reconstruction, une réécriture et une importante mise à jour. Le titre, neuf et provocant à l’époque, est maintenant repris dans le langage courant par les historiens. Il s’agit exclusivement de l’épuration illégale, c’est-à-dire des exécutions, des sévices, des attentats et des incarcérations qui ont eu lieu hors de toute justice institutionnelle un peu partout en France, mais surtout au sud d’une ligne Bordeaux-Lyon, en presque totale impunité, durant la phase insurrectionnelle de la Libération (juin-septembre 1944) et au-delà.
L’ampleur de cette épuration sauvage a profondément marqué la France. Son histoire a pourtant longtemps été négligée, son importance minimisée. Or, pour tous ceux qui, même enfants, ont vécu cette époque, le mot « épuration » évoque moins les 780 exécutions légales et les procès officiels que les milliers d’exécutions sommaires (de 10000 à 15000) et les centaines de milliers d’arrestations arbitraires. Philippe Bourdrel propose ici un inventaire régional détaillé de ces actes et de leurs motivations.

439 p.

"Fruit de la réédition d’un ouvrage initialement paru en deux tomes en 1988 et 1991, L’épuration sauvage de Philippe Bourdrel nous revient sous une forme augmentée et enrichie de nouvelles archives régionales. Lors de sa parution, ce livre s’était surtout signalé par l’imbroglio judiciaire qui avait alors accompagné sa diffusion. Retirée de la vente à la suite de la plainte pour diffamation du fils d’un F.T.P. incriminé par l’auteur, cette étude était du coup passée plus inaperçue qu’elle ne le méritait, bien qu’elle vînt, en contrepoint de L’épuration française de Peter Novick ou de L’épuration d’Herbert Lottman, éclairer un phénomène capital pour la compréhension de la France de la Libération : l’épuration illégale, menée anarchiquement et hors de toute justice autorisée.
L’ampleur de cette épuration sauvage comme la diversité de ses formes donnent toute la mesure de son importance historique. En effet, les 791 condamnations à mort légalement prononcées et mises à effet font pâle figure au regard des 10 000 à 15 000 exécutions sommaires qui émaillèrent la Libération, les procès officiels ne pèsent guère face aux innombrables sévices, attentats et autres fusillades tenant lieu de seul jugement prononcé arbitrairement et en toute impunité.
Bourdrel insiste à raison sur le climat de guerre civile dans la guerre qui a précédé et préparé ce climat insurrectionnel qui se répandit de toutes les exactions possibles. Si cette terreur sourde s’abattit sur toute la France et prit partout le même visage, il apparaît que son intensité varie selon les régions et atteint un niveau particulièrement dramatique au sud d’une ligne reliant l’estuaire de la Gironde à la capitale des Gaules. Le Limousin fut le théâtre privilégié de ce jeu de pancrace intestin. Déboussolée par l’affaissement de l’autorité de Vichy au profit de maquis engagés dans une lutte d’influence sans merci, terriblement éprouvée par des colonnes nazies itinérantes et ivres de sauvagerie, la région paya un lourd tribut à cette épuration sauvage et devint une sorte de «champ clos de la violence».
Les motivations de ces actes sont peu ou prou de même extrace. Derrière la rhétorique de la défense de la liberté, elle est certes une arme politique redoutablement efficace dans un contexte de guerre civile. Pour autant, du Nord au Sud, elle dissimule un nombre incalculable de règlements de compte, de vengeances personnelles assouvies dans le plus grand désordre au nom d’un idéal politique. Le Parti communiste, plus enclin à prendre ses ordres à Moscou que d’en recevoir du gouvernement du général de Gaulle, tint un rôle particulièrement coupable dans l’attisement des passions, préalable, selon lui, à l’enclenchement d’un processus révolutionnaire. L’identité et l’appartenance sociale des victimes désignées ou choisies au hasard furent donc pour la plupart sans surprise : les «ennemis de classe», bourgeois, prêtres et infortunés possédants désignés comme collaborationnistes ou pétainistes ; les résistants gaullistes ou issus de la droite, dangereux concurrents ; les élites locales, socialistes et radicales, accusées d’avoir trahi la révolution que le Front populaire était censé inaugurer.
A la fois séquelle de l’Occupation et revers de la Libération, l’épuration sauvage a terriblement assombri la page des années d’immédiat après-guerre comme elle a durablement meurtri la mémoire de ses victimes, souvent injustement frappées, et de leurs descendants. L’importance de cet épisode de l’histoire de France, plus grande encore dans certaines régions, a pourtant longtemps été minimisée par les historiens et le populaire. L’ouvrage de Philippe Bourdrel, loin d’être un simple inventaire régional de ce phénomène, lui donne tout son relief et lui confère enfin sa juste place dans l’histoire des années noires."

La Tragédie des Allemands des Sudètes 15.00EUR

Austin J. App

Cette brochure sur la tragédie des Sudètes est une œuvre d’amour en même temps qu’un appel à la vérité et à la justice. Avant la Première Guerre mondiale, les Allemands de cette terre devenue tchécoslovaque en 1919 comptaient parmi les plus heureux des hommes. La tragédie commença en 1919, quand les « champions de la démocratie » arrachèrent les Sudètes à l’Autriche. Puis, après une autre croisade alliée pour la « liberté », les Sudètes subirent les pires atrocités quand les « démocrates » tchèques chassèrent de leur patrie trois millions d’entre eux et en firent mourir 241 000. Ces événements s’inscrivent dans l’immense drame humain constitué par l’expulsion, après la Seconde Guerre mondiale, d’environ 15 millions d’Allemands d’Europe centrale et orientale et la mort de plus de 2 millions d’entre eux. Publié en 1979, le présent ouvrage conserve une étonnante actualité avec la récente ratification du traité de Lisbonne par le président tchèque Vaclav Klaus.

112 p.


Les Crimes masqués du résistantialisme 23.00EUR

Abbé Jean Desgranges


Préface d'André Figueras

"Il doit être hautement affirmé, au seuil de ce livre, que l'auteur n'y attaque en aucune façon l'authentique et glorieuse Résistance. À cette Résistance, qui fut celle de la presque unanimité des bons Français, l'auteur s'honore d'avoir appartenu, et de l'avoir servie autant que les poursuites de la Gestapo le lui ont permis. Il s'en explique, au cours de ces pages, chaque fois que l'occasion s'en présente. Il n'en a qu'au RÉSISTANTIALISME, cette abominable exploitation de la vraie Résistance au profit de certains partis politiques, et de la plus éhontée des camaraderies. Pas plus que MM. François Mauriac, le général d'Astier de la Vigerie, le colonel Rémy et tant d'autres, qui, en Résistants incontestés, en hommes d'honneur et de coeur aussi, ont élevé courageusement la voix en faveur de la Justice, l'auteur ne tolérerait que l'on prétendît amoindrir en rien le magnifique mouvement de défense vitale qui a "sauvé l'âme de la France".

Il entend seulement dénoncer l'oeuvre néfaste, les crimes masqués des imposteurs, profiteurs et usurpateurs, qui, par leurs iniquités, leurs vengeances inexorables, et leurs scandaleuses spoliations, ont décimé toute une élite française et tentent de dissocier la conscience elle-même de la Patrie dont le salut a coûté tant de sang à nos martyrs".

Aumônier militaire en 1914-1918, Jean Desgranges participa à l'activité du Parti Démocrate Populaire qu'il représenta à la Chambre de 1928 à 1940. Il participa à la Résistance durant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, échappant de justesse à la police allemande qui le pourchassait. Il présida l'Association des Anciens Représentants du Peuple de la IIIe République, dont il était l'un des fondateurs.174 p.



Martyre et héroïsme des femmes de l'Allemagne orientale 17.00EUR

Récit succinct des souffrances de la Silésie en 1945-1946

Johannes Kaps (éd.)

Un déferlement de violence plongea la Silésie en 1945 dans les ténèbres de l’Apocalypse. Les gens de ce pays semblaient promis à l’anéantissement. Les défenseurs épuisaient leurs dernières forces. Des soldats cruels, obéissant aveuglément aux mots d’ordre de la propagande soviétique, forcèrent les portes des domiciles. Leur volonté de détruire anéantit non seulement l’œuvre des hommes de cette terre mais empoisonna aussi la source de toute vie humaine en faisant des femmes un véritable gibier pour la satisfaction de leurs instincts lubriques. La Silésie fut en ce temps-là une arène de martyrs et nul ne sait combien de femmes silésiennes et de l’Allemagne orientale ont préféré perdre leur vie plutôt que de sacrifier volontairement leur chasteté.

168 p.








FREE PDF GRATUIT - A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans (1944-1950), by Alfred-Maurice de Zayas

FREE PDF GRATUIT - Other Losses: An Investigation Into the Mass Deaths of German Prisoners, by J. Bacque




"Je ne veux pas de suggestions sur la façon dont nous pouvons mettre l'économie et la machine de guerre (allemandes) hors d'état de fonctionner; ce que je veux, ce sont des suggestions sur la façon de rôtir les réfugiés allemands fuyant Breslau."

"I do not want suggestions as to how we can disable the economy and the machinery of war; what I want are suggestions as to how we can roast the German refugees on their escape from Breslau."
- Winston Churchill source


"Y aura-t-il encore de quoi les loger (les réfugiés allemands fuyant l'Armée Rouge) dans ce qu'il reste de l'Allemagne? Nous avons tué six ou sept millions d'Allemands et il y en aura probablement à peu près un autre million qui sera tué avant la fin de la guerre."

"Will there be room for [the German refugees, fleeing before the Red army] in what is left of Germany? We have killed six or seven million Germans and probably there will be an other million or so killed before the end of the war."
- Churchill, according to James F Byrnes' shorthand note of Plenary Session at Yalta, Feb. 7, 1945 (H S Truman Libr., Independence, Missouri). 






De l'Histoire, Gazette / 09-03-2013 / by Propagandesinfo admin / 1 Commentaires / 659 vues

Le véritable visage des « résistants » en haute Savoie – VIDEOS

Le commentateur du reportage d’époque se demande, « Comment de tels crimes peuvent-ils se perpétrer sous le couvert du patriotisme ? ».
La réponse est simple, les « maquisards » étaient des agents de l’étranger, la plupart juifs, aidés de quelques éléments locaux sans scrupules attirés par l’argent facile. Donc le patriotisme pour les uns, les juifs, se résume à la suprématie juive que nous subissons actuellement, et pour les autres, les néojuifs, à tendre leur gamelle.
Résistance et Shoahnanas, même imposture !
Tout ce qui a été raconté sur la résistance a autant de valeur que ce qu’on nous a imposé sur la shoahnanas, c’est à dire que tout est faux.  Ci-après quelques exemples.

La bataille des Glières
en Savoie est une légende, en réalité, le 26 mars 1944, ce sont 2 escrocs maquisards tués et un autre blessé ! Quelle grande bataille !

Oradour sur Glane ?
Une imposture complète, le dépôt de munition des maquisards a sauté, tuant femmes et enfants. Les escrocs n’ont pas voulu assumer leur responsabilité et ont fait porter le chapeau aux allemands qui eux, ont porté secours aux victimes. Les salopards se sont faits passer pour des héros et les véritables héros ont été trainés dans la boue, on reconnait ici la marque du juif.

Jean Moulin ?
Dénoncé pas l’ignoble couple Aubrac, agents judéo-bolchéviques, de leur vrai nom Samuel. Cette vidéo nous rappelle l’affaire qui a fait surface avec le procès Barbie. On y voit la juive Samuel alias Aubrac faire du vent avec sa shoananas qui n’a jamais existé, son seul argument, et l’on repense alors que des grands hommes ont écrit, « juif qui parle, bouche qui ment ».
Vincent Reynouard a fait une excellente vidéo sur les assassinats commis dans l’ombre par les juifs, pardon, par les « résistants ».  Ceux qui ont parlé avec les anciens vous le diront, les « maquisards », surtout les juifs, étaient en fait des pillards, leurs crimes sont innombrables. Ils volaient les gens et leur laissait, occasionnellement, pas toujours, des « bons de réquisition remboursables ». C’est un fait si notoire que même la juiverie ne peut l’éviter, ici dans le documentaire L’argent de la résistance, « A chaque fois, les FFI laissent un bon de réquisition remboursable après la guerre. A la Libération, les restitutions seront en réalité peu nombreuses… » (teleobs.nouvelobs.com). 
En vidéo l’arrestation d’escrocs résistants en Haute-Savoie.






Thomas Goodrich
Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944–1947
Sheridan, Colorado: Aberdeen Books, 2010
What is hell?
I’ve often pondered what the concept “hell” entailed; what it means to be living in the absence of “God,” the supreme creative force behind all life. After reading Thomas Goodrich’s breathtaking and physically nauseating analytical narrative of the burnt offering – Holocaust – of Germany I now know what hell looks like and how its inhabitants live and behave.
Relentless, reckless, and senseless hate of a magnitude so profound, so immense, that I am still unable to understand it. And then the irony of it all: that former inhabitants of EuropeEuropeans – were responsible for inculcating hell in their own Heimat (homeland).
Who but the Devil itself could make a family turn on itself, causing it to tear itself apart in such a murderous, inhuman fashion that the victims are left unrecognizable after all the torture, abuse, burning, systematic rape, and beatings subsides?
Who or what could inspire such madness? Thomas Goodrich answers this question silently, subtly, but matter-of-factly – the Jews in Communist Russia (the former USSR) and Capitalist America and Britain.
Hellstorm is the type of book that changes lives. Goodrich is the type of author who literally puts you, the reader, there in the midst of hell. And what is this hell that he forces you to experience page after page, torture after torture, and rape after rape? One that has been all but forgotten; the only hell the modern age really knows:
The Allied Holocaust of National Socialist Germany
The Propaganda
Goodrich describes the Allied-induced inferno in more detail than most need to know to gain an understanding of the depths of Allied criminality and hatred, but the detail is necessary. Without the detail no one will really know what hell is. Here’s a taste of it.
A German woman has her jaws forced open by the filthy brutish hands of a Soviet serial rapist. He literally spits into her mouth and forces her to swallow his salivary filth as he rams her body again . . . and again . . . and again – until he’s satisfied fulfilling his oath to Stalin and his chief Holocaust propagandist, Ilya Ehrenburg. Stalin officially sanctioned the systematic rape of German women. Ilya Ehrenburg, for his part as the lascivious advocator of rape of German women, helped the Red Army perpetrate the largest gynocide and mass rape in recorded history.
Commissar Ehrenburg’s pamphlet — distributed in the millions among Red Army troops on the front lines of battle who were already intoxicated with hate and vengefulness as a result of over two decades of Bolshevik oppression, mass murder of their families and mass collectivization — urged Soviet troops to plunder, rape and KILL.
The final paragraph of his pamphlet entitled “Kill” reads:
The Germans are not human beings. From now on, the word ‘German’ is the most horrible curse. From now on, the word ‘German’ strikes us to the quick. We have nothing to discuss. We will not get excited. We will kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day… If you cannot kill a German with a bullet, then kill him with your bayonet. If your part of the front is quiet and there is no fighting, then kill a German in the meantime…If you have already killed a German, then kill another one — there is nothing more amusing to us than a heap of German corpses. Don’t count the days, don’t count the kilometers. Count only one thing: the number of Germans you have killed.
Kill the Germans!…
Kill the Germans!
Kill!
And in another leaflet:
The Germans must be killed. One must kill them…Do you feel sick? Do you feel a nightmare in your breast?…Kill a German! If you are a righteous and conscientious man –
kill a German!
. . . Kill!
Ehrenburg, like any skilled propagandist with a penchant for revenge and training in human psychology, appealed to the basest instincts of his men, urging them to rape and wantonly slaughter other human beings at will. There would be no penalties for this injustice as it was all officially sanctioned.
Ehrenburg:
Kill! Kill! In the German race there is nothing but evil; not one among the living, not one among the yet unborn but is evil! Follow the precepts of Comrade Stalin. Stamp out the fascist beast once and for all in its lair! Use force and break the racial pride of these German women. Take them as your lawful booty. Kill! As you storm onward, kill, you gallant soldiers of the Red Army.
The Gynocide
I went into Goodrich’s book expecting to read little more than I already knew about the worst gynocide and mass rape of womankind in recorded history, but I was in for a shock. As an individual who looks out for women’s interests, I was repeatedly overcome with emotion while reading of the indescribable genital mutilations, deliberate and systematic terrorism, gang-rape and wanton mass murder of women.
Goodrich:
From eight to eighty, healthy or ill, indoors or out, in fields, on sidewalks, against walls, the spiritual massacre of German women continued unabated. When even violated corpses could no longer be of use, sticks, iron bars, and telephone receivers were commonly rammed up their vaginas. (p. 155)
Brazilian German Leonora Cavoa:
“Suddenly I heard loud screams, and immediately two Red Army soldiers brought in five girls. The Commissar ordered them to undress. When they refused out of modesty, he ordered me to do it to them, and for all of us to follow him. We crossed the yard to the former works kitchen, which had been completely cleared out except for a few tables on the window side. It was terribly cold, and the poor girls shivered. In the large, tiled room some Russians were waiting for us, making remarks that must have been very obscene, judging from how everything they said drew gales of laughter. The Commissar told me to watch and learn how to turn the Master Race into whimpering bits of misery.”
The horror that ensued nearly defies written description, as no written description can actually make a reader of either sex feel and genuinely know the pain and suffering inflicted in this neverending horror show. The victims’ pain and suffering must have seemed like hours and hours . . . an entire lifetime . . . I can’t imagine. I try not to imagine it because about 2,000 women in the Nemmersdorf area alone suffered a similar fate.
“. . . Now two Poles came in, dressed only in their trousers, and the girls cried out at their sight. They quickly grabbed the first of the girls, and bent her backwards over the edge of the table until her joints cracked. I was close to passing out as one of them took his knife and, before the very eyes of the other girls, cut off her right breast. He paused for a moment, then cut off the other side. I have never heard anyone scream as desperately as that girl. After this operation he drove his knife into her abdomen several times, which again was accompanied by the cheers of the Russians.”
Stop.
Picture it.
Imagine it.
Live it.
Force yourself to see your own body mutilated in similar fashion; force yourself to picture a knife plunging into your abdomen again . . . and again . . . your short lifetime come to this end: you know you are about to die. You are being murdered; your body brutally tortured by a mob of brutal sadists. Try to imagine the horror and the helplessness you would feel as your person was mutilated and your very life bleeding away on a table.
Can a human being really suffer a worse injustice than this?
Now . . . step back out of the scene and analyze this needless, inhuman horror with the gift of hindsight. This victim was not just the victim of these Red Army men, reduced to base animal instinct and mentality, but she was also the victim of an ideology inspired by Judaism and a Jewish propagandist named Ilya Ehrenburg.
Leonora:
The next girl cried for mercy, but in vain—it even seemed that the gruesome deed was done particularly slowly because she was especially pretty. The other three had collapsed, they cried for their mothers and begged for a quick death, but the same fate awaited them as well. The last of them was still almost a child, with barely developed breasts. They literally tore the flesh off her ribs until the white bones showed.
Loud howls of approval began when someone brought a saw from a tool chest. This was used to tear up the breasts of the other girls, which soon caused the floor to be awash in blood. The Russians were in a blood frenzy. More girls were being brought in continually.
I saw these grisly proceedings as through a red haze.
Leonora tried to dissociate from the situation, which is one of the brain’s foremost methods for dealing with psychological and physical trauma. But to no avail, the Russian and Polish “soldiers” disallowed it.
. . . Over and over again I heard the terrible screams when the breasts were tortured, and the loud groans at the mutilation of the genitals. . . . [I]t was always the same, the begging for mercy, the high-pitched scream when the breasts were cut and the groans when the genitals were mutilated. The slaughter was interrupted several times to sweep the blood out of the room and clear away the bodies. . . . When my knees buckled I was forced onto a chair. The Commissar always made sure that I was watching, and when I had to throw up they even paused in their tortures. One girl had not undressed completely, she may also have been a little older than the others, who were around seventeen years of age. They soaked her bra with oil and set it on fire, and while she screamed, a thin iron rod was shoved into her vagina . . .
. . . until it came out her navel.
In the yard entire groups of girls were clubbed to death after the prettiest of them had been selected for this torture. The air was filled with the death cries of many hundred girls” (pp. 156–57).
And this is where I have to stop transcribing.
The Holocaust
The thought of being burned alive is horrific, but the thought of being burned alive because you are trapped in melted asphalt and literally stuck by your own disfigured hands and knees and screaming — in either agony or for salvation from passers-by, or perhaps both — is worse; perhaps even worse than that is being boiled alive in the air raid shelters designed to keep you safe because steam pipes have burst open, unleashing their scorching wrath upon you – just one of millions of victims of Allied “morale bombing”: Victims of your own White racial brethren driven to absolute base madness and inhumanity by Jewish propagandists in the “liberal democracies”.
What did you do to be burned or boiled alive? What was your crime?
You supported Adolf Hitler, the man who dared to stand up to international finance and the Jewish system of systematic international monetary and spiritual enslavement.
THAT was your “crime” and the “crime” of millions of other “statistics” in Germany and Europe who were incinerated, melted, tortured, strafed, raped or blown into body parts by their own racial and cultural kindred in the USSR, Britain and America.
The core of the firestorms often reached 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit; the flames 1,300 to 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. A Holocaust in the truest sense of the word: a burnt offering of the Germanic race – women, children, refugees, POWs, the elderly, and even animals at the Berlin Zoo – to the Christian-Jewish “god” Jahve. The truth is that this was the single largest burnt offering of human flesh to the Devil in recorded history. And for what? For what did hundreds of thousands of German victims suffer: international finance Capitalism.
So that a few people, mostly ethnic Jews, could continue to make money from money; so that a handful of international “bankers” could continue to enslave and exploit hundreds of millions of human beings.
Western man literally burnt and buried his collective spirit, soul and value system in Germany. Germany became the tomb of the West.
The Viricide
Systematic murder of German women and female Axis collaborators was not the only European gendercide from 1944 to 1950. German men and their Cossack and Slavic collaborators became deliberate targets of Anglo-Soviet viricide in the postwar years. German men and boys were reduced to corpses or skeletons by the millions in Eisenhower’s Holodomor (death by famine). Eisenhower’s camps were designed with one purpose in mind: mass death. Millions of German men and boys died from starvation, disease, exposure, heat exhaustion, thirst, and of course torture, slave labor, random massacre, and systematic execution. After having served in the worst war in Western history, and one of the worst in world history, German men came “home” to nothing more than rubble. Their wives, girlfriends, and children were dead, enslaved, mutilated, driven to madness, missing, lost, or had gone with the enemy to survive and prevent further systematic rape by Polish, Russian, and Mongolian “men.” There were very few “homes” to return to, so thousands of men ended their lives in despair. They had survived six years of horror and warfare only to end it all in the street rubble once called “Germany.”
Why?
Because their own blood kindred in America, Britain, the British Commonwealth, and even much of Europe had betrayed them: had turned on them to please their Jewish overlords.
The Spiritual Slaughter
Soviet tanks drive right over German refugees who have survived hell and come so close to salvation, or so they think, in the Allied occupation zone – more aptly described as the Allied destruction zone. The refugees are now just bloodied pulps in the snow, flattened like dough by the tank treks. The Soviet tanks trudge on without even so much as a pause. A German refugee ship capsizes after it is hit by a Soviet torpedo or bombed in an American air strike. All aboard scream and struggle to stay alive; they’ve made it so far, but the vast majority are forced to call the sea their final resting place. Bodies are everywhere in the water. There are literally thousands. Mothers, brothers, sisters, cousins, POWs, and even tiny infants who have just transitioned to life outside the womb and have breathed air for the first time — all dead in a matter of minutes. Some drowned. Many were crushed or torn apart by the rudders. Others froze to death. The sea was awash in human blood and body parts after each and every one of these attacks on refugee ships. No German was innocent. Not one.
This happened to numerous refugee ships. Many aboard were Allied POWs and Jewish camp refugees who had been protected by the fleeing German SS and Wehrmacht men – murdered by their own nation; murdered by their own race.
American pilots swoop down on exposed civilians and refugees in the vast clearing below. They open fire. They actually shoot individual human beings as though they are hunting wild horses or wolves in order to cull them. Machine gun bullets rip into the backs of civilians who had just barely escaped with their lives from the fiery Holocaust that was the city. The holes are the size of baseballs. Hundreds are mowed down instantly or are injured by the fire and debris — nearly all are left to die slow, agonizing deaths in that clearing. All the while Churchill and Roosevelt assure their self-absorbed, apathetic, hedonistic publics, We do not shoot civilians. We do not target civilians.
An older German woman is approached by filthy Soviet soldiers. She knows what awaits her because Goebbels did not lie. She tries to talk them out it. She has children with her. They dispose of the children rapidly, viciously: their heads are rammed into the side of the building. The woman is gang-raped. What does she recall . . . the rape? No. The sound of a child’s skull when it is crushed against a wall. She’ll never forget that sound. Nor will I because I too can hear it. I too witnessed it. I witnessed it through Goodrich.
And then there were the death camps where over a million German men perished because Eisenhower hated Germans: “God I hate the Germans,” he said. His racism and hate became official policy, a policy of genocide – an American orchestrated Holodomor. Countless thousands of German men were shipped off to Britain and Siberia to serve as slave laborers for the “victors”. Victors of what? Total destruction.
They aren’t paid and most die.
Most white American GIs rob the Germans, starve the Germans, plunder and destroy what remains of the German people’s homes, gang-rape German women, and beat and kill German children and honorable SS men. In the meantime most African GIs act kindly and distribute candy and food to German women and children. It is a bitterly confusing and deplorable world when the alleged “monsters” are the kind ones, and the members of your own race — your own blood brethren — act like deplorable beasts with no conscience. And yet this was the reality of Germany after 1945: an unpredictable dichotomy; an alien world.
While this horror is unfolding, Roosevelt (and later Truman) and Churchill cheerily offer Stalin half of Europe. They are more than happy to accommodate nearly every demand drafted up by this “Man of Steel.” The result of these Anglo accommodations nearly defies description: the greatest mass expulsion and deportation in history (upwards of 13 million); the mass murder of millions of Germans and their allies in Russian, French, Jewish, and Polish retribution camps and prisons dotted all throughout Europe and the USSR; the systematic mass rape and murder of German and collaborator women (an estimated two million); and the deliberate secret starvation of the Germanic race as spelled out by the Jewish advisor to Roosevelt and Truman, Henry Morgenthau.
The Toll
Between 20 and 25 million Germans and collaborators perished in the years AFTER the war had officially ended. It is a crime that will never be forgotten, and it is a crime that will forever stain the hands and national consciences of the former USSR, the United States of America, Great Britain and her Commonwealth nations, and perhaps more pointedly the Anglo and Slavic races of the White supra-race.
A little German boy holds a lantern as he sits in a wagon en route to the Allied lines in the bitter winter snow. He’s with his mother. She’s bleeding profusely; she’s dying. The German doctor who the little boy was lucky enough to hunt down is doing his best to perform a tamponade (a blockage) of her uterus. She was brutally, viciously raped. Did she survive? Goodrich doesn’t say, but the prognosis and tone suggests she didn’t make it. She was a German. She supported Hitler. She was a Nazi. She deserved it.
She deserved it.
So said the Allies in the years following the war: Germany merely got what she deserved. The ‘morally superior’ White nations of the globe had smashed ultimate evil: the Nazis; the German race.
Never has a greater lie been told. Never has so much hatred and vengeance been poured forth onto one people and one nation that had chosen not to abide by the laws of international bankers and financiers who wish only to enslave, plunder, steal and when necessary, kill. And most of the White races of the world were more than willing and eager to take up the flag of international Jewish money power and to smash the one White race that opposed it with such honor, valor and sheer might – so much so that it took all the best brain- and material-power of the entire White supra-race and all the monetary power of its Jewish financiers and overlords to break its back. And yet . . . and yet . . . it still was not broken. Goodrich ends the book with a tone of hope.
Beyond Hell
When all had been destroyed, when all seemed to have been lost forever in Year Zero, the Germans proved once again that such was just not the case. Brick by brick and hour by hour they rebuilt upon the ruins of God’s Empire a new Germany. No Holocaust by fire, no gynocide, no viricide, no famine, and no other inhuman atrocities could obliterate or subdue the Germanic element of the White race of humankind.
Even though Germany today is still an occupied nation with a hurting people, she still possesses that flicker of life and spirituality that the other White races and nations lost long ago when they sold their souls to Judaism and the Jewish “god” of hatred and revenge, Jahve. “Unbowed, unbent, unbroken.” Such are the words of an album released by a European band named Hammerfall. And such are the words that describe the German people, the German folk, and the German race. The only ones who bear the burden of bloodstain and guilt are the Allies. No crimes in recorded human history surpass those inflicted against Germany and Europe by the United States, Great Britain and the former United Soviet Socialist Republics – all with Jewish spiritual, media and financial backing and support.
The death of National Socialist Germany was the death of Western man and everything he once stood for.
I must thank Thomas Goodrich. Hellstorm has changed my life.







ATROCITÉS AMÉRICAINES EN ALLEMAGNE

(Article du juge E.L. Van Roden,
«American Atrocities In Germany»,
The Progressive, février 1949, p. 21-22.)

Dans les procès dits de «crimes de guerre» ou de «crimes contre l'humanité», on s'est beaucoup fondé sur les aveux ou les confessions des «criminels». Il nous a paru opportun de rappeler dans quelles conditions ces aveux ou ces confessions avaient pu être recueillis. A ce sujet, l'article du juge américain, Edward L. Van Roden, publié en 1949, reste du plus haut intérêt.


Pour obtenir des aveux, les enquêteurs américains du Tribunal américain de Dachau en Allemagne utilisaient les méthodes suivantes :
  • Ils battaient les accusés et leur donnaient des coups de pied brutaux ;
  • Ils leur faisaient sauter les dents, leur brisaient la mâchoire ;
  • Ils conduisaient des simulacres de procès ;
  • Ils maintenaient les accusés en solitude totale ;
  • Ils se faisaient passer pour des prêtres ;
  • Ils leur donnaient des rations alimentaires très faibles ;
  • Ils les privaient de toute forme de spiritualité ;
  • Ils leur promettaient l'acquittement.
Des plaintes relatives à ces méthodes de troisième degré ont été reçues au printemps dernier par le Secrétaire d'État à l'Armée Kenneth Royall. Ce dernier désigna le juge Gordon Simpson de la cour suprême du Texas ainsi que moi-même pour aller en Allemagne afin de vérifier ce qui était rapporté.

Accompagnés du lieutenant-colonel Charles Lawrence Jr., nous nous sommes rendus à Munich, en Allemagne, y avons ouvert des bureaux et avons entendu alors un flot de témoignages sur les conditions dans lesquelles étaient commises des atrocités américaines.


Mais, tout d'abord, quelques explications de fond :

Au printemps dernier, la cour suprême refusait la demande d'habeas corpus formulée par le colonel Willis N. Everett Jr., juriste américain, qui avait été avocat de la défense des 74 accusés allemands dans l'affaire bien connue de Malmédy. Everett est un avocat très compétent ; c'est un gentleman consciencieux et sincère. Ce n'est pas un fanatique.

Dans sa requête, Everett dénonçait le fait que le procès des Allemands n'avait pas été équitable. Il ne prétendait pas que tous les accusés allemands étaient innocents, mais précisait qu'en raison du caractère arbitraire de leur procès, il était impossible de distinguer les innocents des coupables.

Le drame, c'est que nous, Américains, qui avons combattu et gagné la guerre en donnant tant de notre sueur et de notre sang, nous soyons si nombreux à dire aujourd'hui : «Tous les Allemands doivent être punis». Nous avons gagné la guerre, mais certains d'entre nous veulent continuer à tuer. Cette attitude me semble inique.

Si les accusations accablantes d'Everett devaient se révéler exactes, la conscience américaine en serait souillée pour l'éternité. Le fait que les Allemands aient commis pendant la guerre des atrocités contre des Américains ou que des Américains en aient commis contre des Allemands ne diminuerait pas le moins du monde notre infamie si de telles atrocités en temps de paix devaient continuer sans protestation.

La tâche spécifique qui nous avait été assignée ne consistait pas seulement à examiner les accusations du colonel Everett, mais également à traiter le cas de 139 condamnations à mort, lesquelles, à l'époque, n'avaient pas encore entraîné d'exécution ; 152 Allemands avaient déjà été exécutés.

Les 139 condamnés encore vivants se répartissaient en trois groupes. Ils étaient accusés d'être impliqués dans les crimes du camp de concentration de Dachau, dans le meurtre d'aviateurs américains ou dans les massacres de Malmédy. Je vous dis tout de suite que je crois que les crimes pour lesquels ces Allemands ont été jugés ont réellement été commis, et que certains Allemands s'en sont rendus coupables.

Mais cette haine aveugle de tous les Allemands, qui a éclaté pendant et après la guerre, ne doit pas nous empêcher de prétendre que seuls doivent être punis les coupables.

Après cette enquête, et après avoir discuté de part et d'autre, je ne pense pas que le peuple allemand ait su ce que faisait son gouvernement. Je demeure convaincu que la population allemande n'avait aucune idée des crimes diaboliques que commettait ce monstre insigne d'Himmler dans les camps de concentration. D'après les atrocités dont nous avons eu connaissance, il fallait qu'il soit véritablement le prince des démons.

Mais en ce qui concerne la grande masse des Allemands, ils ont combattu comme des citoyens loyaux, pour faire vivre leur patrie et pour la défendre.

Quelques aviateurs américains dont les avions avaient été abattus au cours des raids de bombardement au-dessus de l'Allemagne ont été tués par des civils allemands. Ces Allemands éprouvaient le sentiment que les aviateurs américains étaient les meurtriers de leurs épouses, de leurs mères et de leurs enfants sans défense qui habitaient les cités bombardées — exactement comme les Anglais l'éprouvèrent à l'égard des aviateurs allemands. C'est cela, la guerre.

Je pensais profondément à ces aviateurs. J'avais deux fils dans l'aviation.

Jimmy devait remplir 35 missions au-dessus de l'Allemagne et en revenir sain et sauf, Dieu merci ! Dick accomplit 32 missions et son avion fut finalement abattu au- dessus de l'Italie. Il passa 12 mois dans un camp allemand de prisonniers de guerre et fut assez bien traité. Il se trouve maintenant dans un sanatorium de l'Arizona et se remet de la tuberculose qu'il a contractée dans ce camp.

Les massacres de Malmédy ont réellement eu lieu : un groupe de prisonniers de guerre américains fut abattu après sa capture au cours de la bataille des Ardennes. Mais n'est-il pas possible d'établir une distinction entre l'affirmation de la réalité de ces atrocités et l'affirmation que ces dernières ont été commises par ces 74 Allemands qui s'étaient alors trouvés à Malmédy ou dans ses environs à ce moment ?

Du fait que certains Allemands, pris à part, méchants et sadiques, en ont été les auteurs, avons-nous le droit de dire que tous les Allemands, quels qu'ils soient, qui tombent entre nos mains sont coupables et doivent être anéantis ? Personnellement je ne le crois pas. Ce n'est pas le mode de pensée que j'ai appris dans mon église ou que vous avez appris dans la vôtre.

Sur l'insistance des Russes, les Américains n'ont pas pu juger de nouveau ces hommes. Dans ce domaine, la philosophie russe est que les enquêteurs déterminent la culpabilité ou l'innocence des accusés et que le juge prononce simplement la sentence. Nous avons accepté la formule russe du refus d'un nouveau jugement, mais avons fait litière de la présomption d'innocence avant le procès.

L'interdiction américaine de déposer sur la foi d'un tiers avait été suspendue. Le témoignage de seconde et de troisième main était admis, bien que l'avocat général eût mis en garde contre la valeur d'une déposition sur la foi d'un tiers, en particulier lorsque celle-ci était obtenue, comme c'était le cas, deux ou trois ans après les faits.

Le lieutenant-colonel Ellis et le lieutenant Perl, du ministère public, invoquèrent qu'il était difficile d'obtenir des preuves satisfaisantes.

Perl déclara à la cour : «Nous avions une cause difficile à élucider et avons dû utiliser des méthodes persuasives». Il avoua à la cour que les méthodes persuasives comportaient divers «expédients, y compris une certaine violence et des simulacres de procès». Ultérieurement, il devait dire à la cour que les procès reposaient sur des déclarations obtenues par des méthodes de ce genre.

Les déclarations reconnues comme constituant des preuves ont été obtenues de la part d'hommes qui, auparavant, avaient été tenus en solitude totale pendant trois, quatre et cinq mois. Ils étaient renfermés entre quatre murs dépourvus de fenêtre, sans possibilité d'exercice physique. On leur poussait deux repas chaque jour au travers d'une fente pratiquée dans la porte. Ils n'avaient pas le droit de parler à qui que ce fût. Pendant tout ce temps ils ne purent pas communiquer avec leurs familles ni avec un pasteur ou un prêtre.

Cette solitude totale se révéla suffisante en elle-même dans certains cas pour persuader les Allemands de signer des déclarations préparées à l'avance. Ces déclarations impliquaient non seulement les signataires, mais souvent aussi d'autres accusés.

Nos enquêteurs mettaient une cagoule noire sur la tête de l'accusé puis lui martelaient le visage avec un coup de poing américain, lui donnaient des coups de pied et le frappaient avec un tuyau de caoutchouc. Ces brutalités firent sauter les dents de nombreux accusés allemands ; certains eurent la mâchoire fracturée.

Dans les 139 cas examinés, tous les Allemands, sauf deux, avaient été frappés à coups de pied dans les testicules de manière irréparable. C'est ce que les enquêteurs américains appelaient un Procédé d'Application Standard.

Perl reconnut avoir utilisé des simulacres de procès et appliqué des méthodes persuasives incluant la violence ; il déclara que la cour était libre de décider du poids à accorder aux dépositions ainsi reçues. Mais toutes furent admises.

Un accusé âgé de 18 ans, après avoir été roué de coups, était en train d'écrire une déposition qu'on lui dictait. A la seizième page, le garçon fut enfermé pour la nuit. Au petit matin, les Allemands des cellules voisines l'entendirent grommeler : «Je ne prononcerai plus un seul mensonge». Plus tard, lorsque le geôlier entra dans la cellule pour lui faire terminer sa fausse déposition, il trouva l'Allemand mort, pendu à un barreau de sa cellule.

Malgré tout, une déclaration écrite selon laquelle cet Allemand se serait pendu pour se soustraire à la signature fut présentée et acceptée comme preuve lors des procès des autres accusés.

Quelquefois, le prisonnier qui refusait de signer était conduit dans un local faiblement éclairé, où un groupe d'enquêteurs civils portant l'uniforme de l'armée américaine se tenait assis autour d'une table noire au centre de laquelle était posé un crucifix, avec deux bougies allumées de chaque côté.

«Tu auras maintenant ton procès américain», disait-on à l'accusé.

Ce faux tribunal prononçait une fausse condamnation à mort. On disait alors à l'accusé : «Dans quelques jours, tu seras pendu, dès que le général aura approuvé cette condamnation ; mais, en attendant, signe ces aveux et nous pourrons te faire acquitter». Certains ne voulaient toujours pas signer.

Nous avons été choqués d'apprendre que le crucifix était tourné ainsi en dérision.

Dans un autre cas, un faux prêtre catholique (c'était en fait un enquêteur) pénétra dans la cellule de l'un des accusés, entendit ce dernier en confession, lui accorda l'absolution, puis lui donna une petite tape amicale en lui disant : «Signe tout ce que les enquêteurs te demandent de signer.

Ça te permettra d'obtenir ta liberté. Même si ta déclaration est fausse, je peux te donner d'avance l'absolution pour le mensonge que tu pourrais raconter».

Notre rapport final sur ces procès a été remis au secrétaire d'État à l'armée Royall. En dépit des nombreux exemples semblables à ceux que je viens de décrire, nous n'avons trouvé aucune machination de caractère général visant à obtenir des dépositions d'une façon malhonnête. A l'exception de 29 cas, aucune raison n'apparut à nos yeux pour que les exécutions n'aient pas lieu. Pour les 110 autres, il existait suffisamment de témoignages sérieux obtenus à partir d'autres sources pour justifier la peine de mort, en excluant les témoignages obtenus par des méthodes du troisième degré.

Les 29 hommes dont nous recommandions de commuer la peine n'ont certainement pas eu de procès équitable, si on se base sur le modèle américain. Vingt-sept d'entre eux devaient être condamnés à la prison à vie ; l'un d'eux devait être condamné à dix ans, et enfin, un autre, à deux ans et demi de prison, conformément à nos recommandations. Nous avons également recommandé un programme permanent de clémence pour une révision des sentences prononcées contre d'autres prisonniers accusés de crimes de guerre.

Le secrétaire d'État Royall a sauvé notre conscience nationale. En tant qu'Américains, pourrions-nous jamais tenir la tête haute s'il n'avait pas pris l'affaire en considération ? Il a sauvé notre prestige national et notre réputation internationale.

Cependant, en dépit de l'action entreprise par le secrétaire d'État Royall dans cette affaire, les Américains ont, à vrai dire, peu de raisons de se regarder avec complaisance. Notre rapport révèle plutôt, de manière implicite, que notre situation est toujours sérieuse en Allemagne et qu'il faut procéder à une remise en ordre. Qui plus est, cinq des hommes pour lesquels nous avions recommandé des commutations de peine ont été pendus depuis la remise de notre rapport. En tout, 100 hommes sur les 139 dont nous avons cherché à étudier le cas sont maintenant morts.

Les enquêteurs américains qui ont commis des atrocités au nom de la justice américaine et sous la bannière américaine s'en tirent sans être inquiétés.


Aujourd'hui, il convient de viser deux objectifs :
  1. Les 39 prisonniers dont les condamnations à mort n'ont pas été commuées et qui n'ont pas encore été pendus doivent être épargnés, en attendant une révision complète du jugement.
  2. Les enquêteurs américains qui ont fait preuve d'abus de pouvoir du fait de la victoire et ont prostitué la justice pour la transformer en vengeance doivent être démasqués dans un procès public, de préférence aux États-Unis, et poursuivis.
A moins que ces crimes commis par des Américains ne soient dévoilés par nous-mêmes dans notre pays, le prestige de l'Amérique et de la justice américaine subira une atteinte permanente et irréparable. Nous pouvons partiellement racheter notre propre mauvais comportement si, en premier lieu, nous le délimitons et si, publiquement, nous le condamnons et le désavouons. Si nous attendons que nos ennemis claironnent notre culpabilité à l'étranger, alors nous ne pourrons qu'incliner nos têtes en reconnaissant notre honte.

Revue d’Histoire révisionniste, n° 6, mai 1992, p. 22-28





American Atrocities in Germany
By JUDGE EDWARD L VAN RODEN

AMERICAN investigators at the U. S. Court in Dachau, Germany, used the following methods to obtain confessions: Beatings and brutal kickings. Knocking out teeth and breaking jaws. Mock trials. Solitary confinement. Posturing as priests. Very limited rations. Spiritual deprivation. Promises of acquittal. Complaints concerning these third degree methods were received by Secretary of the Army Kenneth Royall last Spring [1948]. Royall appointed Justice Gordon Simpson of the Texas Supreme Court and me to go to Germany and check up on the reports. Accompanied by Lt. Col. Charles Lawrence, Jr., we went to Munich, Germany, set up offices there, and heard a stream of testimony about the way in which American atrocities were committed.

But first, a bit of the background. Last Spring the Supreme Court refused the habeas corpus petition of Col. Willis N. Everett, Jr., an American lawyer, who had served as defense counsel for the 74 Germans accused in the famous Malmedy case. Everett is a very able lawyer, a conscientious and sincere gentleman. He is not a fanatic.

In his petition, Everett charged that the Germans had not received a fair trial. Everett did not claim that all the German defendants were innocent, but since they did not have a fair trial, there was no way of telling the innocent from the guilty.

The tragedy is that so many of us Americans, having fought and won the war with so much sweat and blood, now say, "All Germans should be punished." We won the war, but some of us want to go on killing. That seems to me wicked.
If Everett's shocking charges were true, they would be a blot on the American conscience for eternity. The fact that there were atrocities by the Germans during the war against Americans, or by Americans against Germans, would not in the least lessen our disgrace if such peacetime atrocities were to go unchallenged.

Our specific assignment was not only to examine Col. Everett's charges, but also to examine the cases of the 139 death sentences, which at that time remained unexecuted: 152 Germans had already been executed.
The 139 doomed men who were still alive fell into three groups. They were accused of involvement in the Dachau concentration camp crimes, in the killing of American fliers, or in the Malmedy massacres. Let me say that I believe the crimes for which these Germans were tried actually took place, and that some Germans were guilty of them.

But we should not let the indiscriminate hate of all Germans that was generated during and after the war, blind us to the necessity of punishing the guilty ones only.

 http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/images/HimmleronTime.gif 

After this investigation, and after talking to all sides, I do not believe that the German people knew what the German Government was doing. I am convinced the German populace had no idea what diabolical crimes that arch-fiend, [Heinrich] Himmler, was committing in the concentration camps (pour rappel, dachau n'est plus considéré aujourd'hui comme un camp d'extermination par les historiens). From the atrocities we learned about, he must have been the very prince of devils.

But as for the Germans at large, they fought the war as loyal citizens with a fatherland to support, and a fatherland to defend.

Some American fliers, shot down on bombing raids over Germany, were killed by German civilians.

These Germans felt that the American fliers were the murderers of their defenseless wives, mothers, and children who were in the bombed cities, just as the English felt that German fliers were their murderers. That's war.
I felt deeply about these fliers. I had two sons in the Air Force. Jimmy made 35 missions over Germany and returned safe, thank God! Dick made 32 Missions and was finally shot down over Italy. He spent 12 months in a German prisoner-of-war camp and was fairly well treated. He is now in a sanitarium in Arizona recovering from TB he contracted in the camp.

II
The Malmedy massacres, in which a group of American prisoners of war were mown down after being captured during the Battle of the Bulge, actually happened. But can't we distinguish between the assertion that these atrocities did happen, and the assertion that they were committed by these 74 Germans who had been in or near Malmedy at that time?

Because some wicked sadistic German individuals did it, are we doing the right thing by saying any and all Germans we lay our hands on are guilty and should be destroyed? I personally don't believe that. That's not the way of thinking I learnt in my church, or you learned in your church.
On Russian insistence, the Americans couldn't retry these men. The Russian philosophy in these matters is that the investigators determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, and the judge merely sets the sentence. We accepted the Russian formula of no-retrial, but we won out on the presumption of innocence before trial.

The American prohibition of hear-say evidence had been suspended. Second and third-hand testimony was admitted, although the Judge Advocate General warned against the value of hearsay evidence, especially when it was obtained, as this was, two or three years after the act. Lt. Col. Ellis and Lt Perl of the Prosecution pleaded that it was difficult to obtain competent evidence. Perl told the court, "We had a tough case to crack and we had to use persuasive methods." He admitted to the court that the persuasive methods included various "expedients, including some violence and mock trials." He further told the court that the cases rested on statements obtained by such methods.
The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four, and, five months. They were confined between four walls, with no windows, and no opportunity of exercise. Two meals a day were shoved in to them through a slot in the door. They were not allowed to talk to anyone. They had no communication with their families or any minister or priest during that time.
This solitary confinement proved sufficient in itself in some cases to persuade the Germans to sign prepared statements. These statements not only involved the signer, but often would involve other defendants.

III Our investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him, and beat him with rubber hose. Many of the German defendants had teeth knocked out. Some had their jaws broken.

All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was Standard Operating Procedure with American investigators.
Perl admitted use of mock trials and persuasive methods including violence and said the court was free to decide the weight to be attached to evidence thus received. But it all went in.

One 18 year old defendant, after a series of beatings, was writing a statement being dictated to him. When they reached the 16th page, the boy was locked up for the night. In the early morning, Germans in nearby cells heard him muttering. "I will not utter another lie." When the jailer came in later to get him to finish his false statement, he found the German hanging from a cell bar, dead. However the statement that the German had hanged himself to escape signing was offered and received in evidence in the trial of the others.

Sometimes a prisoner who refused to sign was led into a dimly lit room, where a group of civilian investigators, wearing U. S. Army uniforms. were seated around a black table with a crucifix in the center and two candles burning, one on each aide. "You will now have your American trial," the defendant was told.

The sham court passed a sham sentence of death. Then the accused was told, "You will hang in a few days, as soon as the general approves this sentence: but in the meantime sign this confession and we can get you acquitted." Some still wouldn't sign.

We were shocked by the crucifix being used so mockingly.

In another case, a bogus Catholic priest (actually an investigator) entered the cell of one of the defendants, heard his confession, gave him absolution, and then gave him a little friendly tip: "Sign whatever the investigators ask you to sign. It will get you your freedom. Even though it's false, I can give you absolution now in advance for the lie you'd tell."

Our final report on these trials has been turned over to Secretary of the Army Royall. In spite of the many instances like those I have described, we found no general conspiracy to obtain evidence improperly. With the exception of 29 cases, we saw no reason why the executions should not be carried out. For the 110 others, there was sufficient competent evidence from other sources to warrant the death penalty, exclusive of the evidence obtained by the third-degree.

The 29 men whose sentences we recommended for commutation certainly did not have a fair trial by American standards. Twenty-seven of them were to have their terms reduced to life, one of them was to get 10 years, and one would get two and one-half years, according to our recommendations. We also recommended a permanent program of clemency for reconsideration of the sentences of other prisoners convicted in war crimes cases.

Secretary Royall has saved our national conscience. Could we as Americans ever have held our heads up if he hadn't looked into it? He has saved our national prestige and our international reputation. However, in spite of Secretary Royall's action in this matter, there is little real room for complacency on the part of Americans. Rather our report reveals, by implication, that we still have a serious situation in Germany to clear up. Moreover, five of the men for whom we recommended commutations have been hanged since we turned in our report. In all 100 of the 139 we set out to investigate are now dead.

IV The American investigators who committed the atrocities in the name of American Justice and under the American flag are going scot-free. At this point there are two objectives which should be aimed for:

  • 1. Those prisoners whose death sentences have not been commuted and who have not yet been hanged should be saved, pending full judicial review.
  • 2. American investigators who abused the powers of victory and prostituted justice to vengeance, should be exposed in a public process, preferably in the U. S., and prosecuted.
Unless these crimes committed by Americans are exposed by us at home, the prestige of America and American justice will suffer permanent and irreparable damage. We can partially atone for our own misconduct if we first search It out and publicly condemn and disavow it. If we wait for our enemies to blazon our guilt abroad, we can only bow our heads in shamed admission.
EDWARD L. VAN RODEN, a Pennsylvania judge served in World War I and II, in the latter as Chief of the Military Justice Division for the European Theater where he saw service in Normandy, Belgium, the Rhineland, the Battle of the Bulge, and in the Ardennes. In 1946 he was reassigned to active duty and served on several important court martial trials in Germany. In 1948 Secretary of the Army Royall appointed him to an extraordinary commission charged with investigating the Dachau War Crimes program.


Real History and the camp at Dachau




http://www.vsubhash.com/article.asp?id=124&info=John_Sack%E2%80%99s_Eye_For_An_Eye

John Sack's An Eye For An Eye

You might have heard of concentration camps that the Germans ran for the Jews. But, have you heard about the 1255 concentration camps that the Jews ran for ethnic Christian Germans AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR? Did you know that 60,000 to 80,000 thousand Germans died in those camps? Did you know that the German government refused to investigate these crimes? Did you know that when John Sack, a well-known Jewish reporter, decided to write a book about these camps, no publisher in the "Free World" would dare to publish it? Did you know that one publisher printed it and pulped the entire edition? This is his account in his own words. (...)

Writing Lola's Story

Now, this story I liked. If it was true, this was a story worth telling. I had this dream: maybe the Serbs and Croats will read it, the Irish Catholics and Protestants will read it, the Hutus and Tutsis, the Israelis and Palestinians ... Maybe they'll read it, and maybe they'll learn, as Lola did, that to hate your neighbors may or may not destroy them, but it does destroy yourself. And maybe these people will stop their revenge, stop their genocide.
We Jews always say of the Holocaust, "Never again. Never again will people hurt us simply because we are Jews." But Lola was apparently saying, "Yes, and never again will I hurt a German simply because he's a German." Fifty years ago, Lola was apparently saying, "Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me." This story I wanted very much to write. So ...
I start interviewing Lola. At the Inn of the Seventh Ray in Los Angeles. At a Jewish cemetery in New Jersey. On the Champs Elysés in Paris. I interview Lola on and off for two-and-a-half years. Her memories just pour out, and she also introduces me to a dozen other people, all Jews: people who knew her in Gleiwitz, prison guards in Gleiwitz, even the man who appointed her the commandant in Gleiwitz.
I write a twenty-page article on Lola's revenge and Lola's redemption. Lola reads it and likes it. The story runs in California magazine. Lola, at her own expense, comes to Washington to promote it on National Public Radio. The story is sold internationally, and it's reprinted in Best Magazine Articles, 1988. We have movie offers. Bette Midler and Suzanne Somers want to play the Lola part.
And then I write a book proposal. I write, "It's Lola's redemption, not Lola's revenge, that this book's about." I'll go to Germany. I'll find some prisoners maybe. I'll go to Poland. I'll find some more guards, maybe. I'll write a book. The title will be Lola. And in August 1988, the publisher Henry Holt in New York City says, "Okay! We want it!" Good news, and I phone it to Lola.
And Lola on the telephone says, "Listen, John, I don't want you to write it." I say, "Lola? Lola, this is the first time you've told that to me." I say, "Lola, we signed a contract." We had signed one. Lola had written, "I grant you the exclusive right to write and to publish a book about my life."
That night I go to Lola's apartment in Hollywood. Anyone here ever been in an encounter group? Remember your first night? Everyone shouting and screaming. You're just sitting there stupefied. You're thinking, "What is going on?" Well, I'm in Lola's condo. Lola is saying, "Lookit, John. I don't like the way you write. You write like a reporter. If you start writing this book, I will stop you. I will stop you!"
Lola's daughter is there. She's saying, "John, give it up. I'm begging you to give it up. John! Give it up!" Another daughter of Lola's is there. She's a lawyer, and she says, "John! You're going to have instantaneous and very expensive litigation!" Lola's saying, "I'll go to court." The daughter's saying, "John, I want you to sign this release. John! Sign the release!" The other daughter's saying, "John! Just leave us! Just go!" Lola's saying, "John! Get out of our lives!"
I leave. I telephone Lola but she doesn't answer. I write her, but she sends the letters back, unopened, inscribed "refused."
And not just Lola. Lola's second-in-command at the prison in Gleiwitz was Moshe, also a Jew. He won't talk to me. His wife on the telephone says, "We don't give you the permission to write this." I say, "I ... You ..." That's what I say, "I ... You ... One doesn't need permission!" I have permission, from the Constitution of the United States. Moshe's wife hangs up.
And then there is Jadzia, also a Jew, she was one of Lola's guards in Gleiwitz. Jadzia says on the telephone, "I was never in Gleiwitz!" Then she says, "Yes, I was in Gleiwitz, but I'll never talk about it!" And then she talks for an hour saying, "I don't know nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing. Nothing! Nothing!"
People won't talk to me. People tell other people, "Don't talk to John Sack." People talk to me, and they lie to me. People say they'll sue me, they'll destroy me, they'll kill me. One man takes my driver's license, writes down my address, and says, "If you write about me, I will call the Israeli Mafia."
Here's some advice. Never tell a reporter, "You'd better not write this." I have a contract with Henry Holt. I've made a promise to Henry Holt. I keep my promises.
In April 1989, I fly to Germany. I go to this castle, this concrete castle, high on a hill above the Rhine. It's the German Federal Archives, and they've got forty thousand statements there by Germans who lived in what now is Poland during World War II. The statements of course are in German, in German script, and I find five statements from Germans who were in Lola's prison.
I go to another place in Germany: a great medieval hall, with banners on the stone walls. It's a reunion of a thousand people from Gleiwitz. They're drinking beer. They're eating sausages and sauerkraut. They're laughing and singing, "Ein prosit, ein prosit ..." And I'm like a little flower girl. You know, the girl who goes from table to table selling roses? I'm going around asking, "Uh, excuse me. Anyone here who was in prison in Gleiwitz?" Yeah, I am a party pooper. I admit it. But eventually I find five of Lola's prisoners.
I take the train to Gleiwitz. Now it's Gliwice, Poland. And going through Communist East Berlin, I'm arrested, taken off the train, and locked up in a little room because with me I have a copy of the book Die Vertreibung der deutschen Bevìkerung aus den Gebieten ótlich der Oder-Neisse ["The Expulsion of the German Population from the Territories East of the Oder-Neisse," published in the 1950s by the Bonn government]. Hours later I'm let out and I get to Gleiwitz/ Gliwice at four in the morning. It's a city of two hundred thousand people, almost none of whom speak English. I don't speak Polish, but I find three of Lola's guards. They remember her well.
It's 1989, Poland is still Communist, but I get into Lola's prison, into the prisoners' cells. I tell them, "Djien dobre. Good morning." I see the prison records. Remember when, according to Lola, she went to the Polish government and said, "I want revenge"? Well, I find her application, in her own handwriting. She wrote, "I want to cooperate against our German oppressors." I find the official document appointing her commandant in Gleiwitz.
After that, I go to Germany eleven more times, to Poland three more times, to France, Austria, Israel, Canada, and all around the United States. Through interpreters I talk to two hundred people in Polish and Russian, Danish and Swedish, German and Dutch, French and Spanish, Yiddish and Hebrew. I left out English. I get three hundred hours of tape-recorded interviews, and I see thousands of documents.
And what do I learn? Well: Lola was telling the truth. She was the commandant in Gleiwitz. And she was taking revenge. She slapped the Germans around. And just as she said, she stopped. I remember one day in 1989, I'm having lunch with one of her guards at the Hotel Leszny. We're eating wienerschnitzel. And out of the blue the man says, "You know, Lola stopped. She told us, 'Stop!' She said, 'We're going to show the Germans we're not like them.'"
So Lola was telling the truth. But, she wasn't telling the whole truth. Lola had told me the people in her prison were German soldiers. And yes, twenty of them were German soldiers, men who worked as painters, carpenters, and such. But there were a thousand other prisoners there, and they were German civilians: German men, German women, German children.
One prisoner was a fourteen-year-old boy. He had been out in Gleiwitz wearing his boy scout pants. A man cried out, "You're wearing black pants! You're a fascist!," and he chased the boy and tackled him at the Church of Saint Peter and Paul, and then took him to Lola's prison. Now, the boy was completely innocent. So were most of the people in Lola's prison. They weren't Gestapo. They weren't SS. They weren't even Nazis. Out of a thousand prisoners, just twenty were ever even accused of it.
But the Germans in Lola's prison were slapped and whipped. And I'm so sorry to have to say it, but they were also tortured. The boy scout: the guards poured gasoline on his curly black hair and set it on fire. The boy went insane. The men: they were beaten with a Totschläger, a "beater-to-death." It's a long steel spring with a big lead ball at the end. You use it like a racketball racket. Your arm, your wrist, the spring: they deliver a triple hit to a German's f ace.
Lola didn't tell me, but the Germans in her prison were dying. I found their death certificates in Gleiwitz city hall. One of Lola's guards told me, "Yeah, the Germans would die." He told me, "I'd put the bodies in a horse-drawn cart. I'd cover them with potato peels so no one would see. I'd ride to the outskirts and, after I threw the potato peels out, I'd take the Germans to the Catholic cemetery. To the mass grave."
We all know about Auschwitz. But I have to tell you, the Germans in Lola's prison were worse off than Lola had been at Auschwitz. Lola at Auschwitz wasn't locked in a room night and day. She wasn't tortured night after night. She herself told me: "Thank God, nobody tried to rape us. The Germans weren't allowed to." But all of that happened to German girls at Lola's prison in Gleiwitz.
One woman I talked with wasn't even German. She was Polish. In 1945 she was twenty years old: a tall, blonde, beautiful medical student. The guards at Lola's prison pulled off her clothes and told her, "Let's do it!" They beat her and beat her, night after night, until she was black and blue. One morning, she came back to her cell and fell on the floor, sobbing. Her cellmate asked her, "What, what is that blue thing you're wearing? Oh, oh, it's your skin."
And ten feet away was Lola's office. Lola in her brass, braid, and stars. I once asked her, "Lola, where did you get that uniform?," and Lola said, "Well, the Russians must've given it to me." That wasn't the whole truth either.
Lola was in the Polish secret police. Its name was the Office of State Security, in Polish the Urzad Bezpieczenstwa Publicznego. The Germans called it the Polish Gestapo. One of its missions was to round up Nazi suspects. But for all practical purposes, if you were a German, you were a Nazi suspect. So the mission was to round up Germans, imprison them, interrogate them, and if they confess, prosecute them.
In the Office of State Security, the lower ranks were Polish Catholics, but most of the leaders were Polish Jews. The chief of the Office in Warsaw was a Jew. (When I was in Poland he wasn't alive, but I met some of his family.) The department directors, all or almost all of them, were Jews.
In Silesia, the province where Lola was commandant, the director of the Office of State Security was a Jew. I met him in Copenhagen, a little bald-headed man. The director of prisons was also a Jew. I met his whole family in Tel Aviv. The secretary of state security was a Jew. I met him time and again at his home in New Jersey. And in the Office of State Security in Silesia in February 1945, of the officers - not the enlisted men, not the guards, but the lieutenants, captains and such - one-fourth were Catholics, and three-fourths were Jews.
I interviewed twenty-four of them. And I learned that the Office of State Security ran 227 prisons for German civilians like Lola's. It also ran 1,255 concentration camps, and I interviewed four of the commandants. They were also Jews. One was Lola's boy friend, a man who'd lost in the Holocaust his mother, his father, all his brothers (he had no sisters), all his uncles and aunts, and all but one of his cousins. I hope that, like me, you can all have compassion for Solomon Morel.
But one night in February, 1945, Solomon went to his concentration camp in the city of Swietochlowice. He went into the Germans' barracks, and said, "My name is Captain Morel. I am a Jew. I was at Auschwitz. I swore I would take revenge on you Nazis." They weren't Nazis, but Solomon said, "Now! Everyone! Sing the Horst Wessel song!" That was a Nazi anthem. No one wanted to sing it. One boy, fourteen years old, didn't even know it.
Solomon had a club. He said, "Sing it!" Some people began, "Die Fahne hoch! Die Reihen fest geschlossen ..." "Sing it! Sing it, I say!" They started singing, "Clear the streets for the brown battalions. Clear the street for the Storm Section men." Solomon had all this hate inside him, and he released it. He picked up a wooden stool and he started beating the Germans to death. For this one camp, I found the death certificates for 1,583 Germans.
In other camps and other prisons, thousands of German civilians died. German men, women, children, babies. At one camp there was a barracks for fifty babies. They were in cribs, but the camp doctor, Dr. Cedrowski - he was a Jew who had been in Auschwitz -- he didn't heat the barracks, and he didn't give the babies milk. He gave them only some soup, and forty-eight of the fifty babies died.
All in all, sixty to eighty thousand Germans died. Some were killed by Jews, some by Catholics, and many by typhus, dysentery, and starvation, but sixty to eighty thousand died in the custody of the Office of State Security. Now, someone, a German, once told me that this was another holocaust. Well, I'm sure it seemed like a holocaust to the Germans.
But let's not forget: sixty thousand is one percent of the number of Jews who died in the capital-H Holocaust. Jews didn't do what the Germans did. We didn't plot to exterminate the German people. We didn't mobilize all the Jews and the Jewish state. (There was no Jewish state.) We didn't send the Germans systematically to cyanide chambers.
But let's also remember that sixty to eighty thousand civilians is more than the Germans lost at Dresden, and more than, or just as many as, the Japanese lost at Hiroshima, the Americans at Pearl Harbor, the British in the Battle of Britain, or the Jews at Belsen or Buchenwald.
All this was covered up for nearly fifty years. Jews who were involved didn't talk about it. For example, the chief of police in occupied Breslau, Germany, in 1945, who was Jewish, later wrote a book about the Holocaust. And in telling about his time as chief of police in Breslau, all he says is, "We moved westward to Breslau and ... from there ... to Prague." That's it. And Jewish reporters who knew didn't write about it. There's a working reporter right now in New York City who was in Poland right after World War II. He told me, "Whatever, whatever the Germans tell you, believe me, it's true." But he himself, he never wrote about it.
The truth was covered up, and was still being covered up. In 1989, I went to Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, Israel's central Holocaust center. As you may know, they have fifty million documents there about the Holocaust. I ask them, "Well, what do you have on the Office of State Security?" They have nothing. I ask them, "What do you have on the Jews in the Office of State Security?" Nothing. I say, "Well, there were Jewish commandants, Jewish directors, Jewish ..." The chairman of Yad Vashem responds, "It sounds rather imaginary," and the director of archives says to me, "Imm-possible! Impossible!"
Denial, denial. I know that denial is a very human thing. But historically I don't think it's a Jewish thing. When Abraham, Isaac and Jacob committed sins, we Jews didn't deny it. Yes, Abraham, the father of our people, sinned. God told him to go to Israel, instead he went to Egypt, and we admitted it in the Book of Genesis. Judah (the word "Jew" comes from Judah) made love to a prostitute. We admitted it in Genesis. Moses, even Moses sinned, and God didn't let him into the Promised Land. We admitted that in Deuteronomy. Solomon -- good, wise, old King Solomon -- did evil. He "worshipped idols." We didn't cover it up. We admitted it in the Book of Kings.
It seems to me that that's the Jewish tradition. How can we say to other people -- to Germans, to Serbs, to Hutus -- "What you're doing is wrong," if we ourselves do it and cover it up? I wish it were someone else who was here today. Abraham Foxman. Elie Wiesel. I wish he or she would simply say yes, some Jews, some Jews, did evil in 1945. But when the Jewish establishment didn't say it, then I had to say it.
I'm a reporter. That's what reporters do. Someone kills sixty thousand people, we report it. If we don't report it, it might become common, or more common, than it already is. But also I'm a Jew, and the Torah says (Leviticus 5:1), that if someone does evil, and if I know it and don't report it, then I am guilty too.
So I start writing this book. The title now won't be Lola. It'll be An Eye For An Eye. And on the third page I write, "I hope that An Eye For An Eye is something more than the story of Jewish revenge: that it's the story of Jewish redemption." I write about Jews taking revenge, yes. But that is one tenth of An Eye for an Eye. Mostly I write ...
I write about Zlata, Moshe, Mania, and Pola. They were Jews who refused to look at, much less work at Lola's prison. I write about Ada, who visited the prison once, just once, and then fled to Israel. I write about Shlomo, who was in the Office of State Security and, at the risk of his life, told people in it, "You must stop doing this."
I write about Lola. I write that in Gleiwitz she finally remembered how a Jew should act and, at the risk of her life, she got bread, her own bread from her own home, and smuggled it to the German prisoners. Now this isn't something that Lola told me. No, the prison guards told me. They said that if Lola had been caught, she'd have gone to prison herself.
And I write that at Yom Kippur, 1945, Lola -- again at the risk of her life -- escaped from Gleiwitz, just as she had escaped some months earlier from Auschwitz, and came to the United States. Almost all the Jews in the Office of State Security escaped, at the risk of their lives, in September, October, and November 1945. And I write that too. They crept through the woods into Germany, or climbed the pass into Italy. They did what the SS never did: they deserted, they defected.
I was crying while I was writing this. My advance from Henry Holt was $25,000, and for three years I was writing An Eye For An Eye. In September 1991 I finally finished it, wrapped it up, and mailed it to Henry Holt in New York. And I told myself: "Okay. I've done it. That's the end of the cover-up."
No. Because then the people at Henry Holt say, "We don't want it." They don't say it's wrong. They know it's right. They just say, "We don't want to publish it. Keep the twenty-five thousand." Okay. My agent and I send the manuscript to other publishers: to Harper's, to Scribner's - you name it, we sent it - to two dozen other publishers.
And let me tell you. The letters we get from these people, they're practically blurbs. The publishers say: "well-written," "extremely well-written," "chilling," "compelling," "disturbing," "dismaying," "shocking," "startling," "astonishing," "mesmerizing," "extraordinary," "I was riveted," "I was bowled over," "I love it!" And the publishers all reject it. The letter from St. Martin's Press says, "I am always moved by Holocaust books, but I'd have trouble distinguishing this book ... from other books ... in this vast area of literature."
Okay. My agent and I agree that if we can't sell a book, we'll try magazines. One of the chapters is on Solomon Morel. Remember? The man who lost his mother, father, all his siblings, uncles, and aunts in the Holocaust. The man who had so much hate for the Germans, he had to disgorge it, who commanded a concentration camp at Swietochlowice, and beat Germans to death.
Solomon is still alive. He's wanted by Interpol for crimes against humanity. Interpol has an international warrant out for his arrest. But he's fled to Israel. He's taking refuge in Tel Aviv, and no one in America -- no newspaper, magazine or television network -- has ever reported it.
So we send the chapter on Solomon Morel to Esquire magazine. I've been a contributing editor there, a war correspondent in Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia. Esquire says, "No." We send it to GQ magazine. GQ says, "Yes!" The editor says it's the most important story in GQ's history. He even tells that to an editor of Esquire at a bar in Greenwich Village. He tells him, "Ha, ha! You don't have it! We do!"
For six weeks GQ is fact-checking. They don't find a single error. They send me the galley proofs, the page proofs, and on Wednesday the presses will roll. And then the telephone rings at my home in the Rocky Mountains. The editor of GQ says, "John, this isn't a happy phone call. We aren't going to run it." He tells me to keep the $15,000 and to sell the story somewhere else.
So once again my agent and I are making calls, sending faxes, passing out the GQ page proofs. Harper's magazine says no. Rolling Stone says no and "I'm sure you'll understand." Mother Jones, that great exposé magazine ("Extra! Extra! Cigarettes are bad for you!") doesn't even call back. The New Yorker (which has published ten pieces by me) refuses even to look at it.
But finally, finally, in March 1993, the story of Solomon Morel is published in the Village Voice. And in November, An Eye For An Eye is published by Basic Books, a division of HarperCollins. So, thank God, now it's all over. I can relax now. Not.
Because one day later there's a telephone call to Basic Books. It's from the executive director of the World Jewish Congress. He says he wants an immediate retraction, and if he doesn't get it he'll call a major press conference tomorrow. He says he'll denounce me, Basic Books, and HarperCollins, and say, "They are all anti-Semites." Well, we don't retract, and the World Jewish Congress doesn't denounce. But …
Then the reviews come out. And the reviewers say that An Eye for an Eye isn't true, that what I wrote there never happened at all.
Please! Much of An Eye For An Eye had been fact-checked by California magazine, fact-checked by GQ, and, for the Village Voice, fact-checked by a woman who is the Fact-Checker from Hell. She and I checked every single word, even if we had to call up Poland. And when, after two weeks of this, night and day, we were finally done, the editor of the Voice gave an interview saying, "This may be the most accurate story in the history of American journalism."
Much of An Eye For An Eye was corroborated by 60 Minutes, which found eight eyewitnesses I hadn't found. It was corroborated by the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune. Historians hired by major newspapers in Germany went to the German Federal Archives and wrote, "The facts are true," "The facts are right," "The facts are iron-bound."
But in the United States, one review was entitled "False Witness." Another was headed "The Big Lie, Continued."
The Jewish paper Forward said, "Sack is transparently writing docudrama," and told readers that Lola Potok was not the commandant of the prison in Gleiwitz. Well, Lola herself had told me, "I was the commandant," and thirty-five other people, including the current commandant, including the current director of prisons, said yes, Lola was the commandant. I have the document that says, "We appoint Citizen Lola Potok Commandant," and I have a document signed by Lola Potok, Commandant. But still the Forward said, "The unlikelihood is overwhelming but Sack ... seems ... oblivious." As I read this, I felt I was being lectured by Chico Marx. Remember? "Who you gonna believe? Your own two eyes or me?" I wrote a letter to the Forward. Over the last seven years, I've had to write, at last count, about 1,500 letters about An Eye for an Eye. And all those letters, added up, are twice as long as the book is.




L’« ordre de famine » d’Eisenhower
« Jamais autant de gens n’avaient été mis en prison. L’ampleur des captures faites par les alliés était sans précédent dans toute l’histoire. Les Soviétiques firent prisonniers quelques 3,5 millions d’Européens, les Américains environ 6,1 millions, les Britanniques environ 2,4 millions, les Canadiens environ 300 000, les Français environ 200 000. Des millions de Japonais furent capturés par les Américains en 1945, plus environ 640 000 par les Soviétiques.
Dès que l’Allemagne capitula le 8 mai 1945, le gouverneur militaire américain, le général Eisenhower, diffusa un “courrier urgent” dans toute la vaste zone qu’il commandait, faisant pour les civils allemands un crime punissable de mort le fait de nourrir des prisonniers. C’était un crime passible de mort même de rassembler de la nourriture à un endroit dans le but de la donner aux prisonniers... L’ordre, [traduit] en allemand, fut envoyé aux gouvernements des provinces, leur ordonnant de le transmettre immédiatement aux autorités locales. Des copies des ordres ont été récemment découvertes dans plusieurs villages près du Rhin... Le message [reproduit par Bacque dans son livre] disait entre autres : “...sous aucune circonstance, des approvisionnements en vivres ne doivent être rassemblés parmi les habitants du lieu dans le but de les donner aux prisonniers de guerre. Ceux qui violent ce commandement et même qui essayent de tourner cet ordre en permettant à quelque chose de parvenir aux prisonniers, se placent eux-mêmes en danger d’être abattus.
L’ordre d’Eisenhower fut aussi posté en anglais, en allemand et en polonais sur le tableau d’affichage du quartier général du gouvernement militaire en Bavière, signé par le Chef d’état-major du gouverneur militaire en Bavière. Plus tard il fut posté en polonais à Straubing et à Regensburg, où se trouvaient de nombreuses compagnies de gardes polonais dans les camps proches. Un officier de l’US Army qui lut cet ordre en mai 1945 a écrit que c’était “l’intention du commandement de l’armée, au sujet des camps de prisonniers de guerre allemands dans la zone américaine, de mai 1945 jusqu’à la fin de 1947, d’exterminer autant de prisonniers de guerre que possible tant que l’affaire se passerait sans contrôle international”.
... La politique de l’armée [américaine] était d’affamer les prisonniers, selon plusieurs soldats américains qui se trouvaient là. Martin Brech, professeur de philosophie à la retraite du Mercy College à New York, qui fut gardien à Andernach en 1945, a raconté qu’un officier lui avait dit que “C’est notre politique que ces hommes ne soient pas nourris”. Les 50 à 60 000 hommes à Andernach mouraient de faim, vivant sans abris dans des trous dans le sol, essayant de se nourrir avec de l’herbe. Quand Brech leur passa du pain en fraude à travers les barbelés, un officier lui ordonna d’arrêter. Plus tard, Brech leur glissa plus de nourriture, se fit prendre, et le même officier lui dit : “Si vous refaites cela, vous serez abattu.” Brech vit des cadavres sortir du camp “par le camion de service” mais on ne lui dit jamais combien ils étaient, où ils étaient enterrés, ni comment.
… Le prisonnier Paul Schmitt fut tué dans le camp américain de Bretzenheim après s’être approché des barbelés pour voir sa femme et son jeune fils qui lui apportaient un panier de vivres. Les Français en firent autant : Agnès Spira fut tuée par des gardes français à Dietersheim en juillet 1945 pour avoir apporté de la nourriture aux prisonniers. Son mémorial près de Büdesheim, écrit par l’un de ses enfants, dit : “Le 31 juillet 1945, ma mère me fut arrachée soudainement et de manière inattendue, à cause de ses bonnes actions envers les soldats emprisonnés.” La note dans le registre de l’église catholique dit simplement : “Une mort tragique, tuée à Dietersheim le 31.07.1945. Enterrée le 3.08.1945.” Martin Brech vit avec stupéfaction un officier se tenant sur une colline à Andernach tirant des coups de feu sur des femmes allemandes qui s’enfuyaient en courant dans la vallée en-dessous. Le prisonnier Hans Scharf... vit une femme allemande avec ses deux enfants, qui vint vers un garde américain dans le camp de Bad Kreuznach, apportant une bouteille de vin. Elle demanda au garde de donner la bouteille à son mari, qui était juste de l’autre côté des barbelés. Le garde porta la bouteille à sa propre bouche, et quand elle fut vide, il la jeta sur le sol et il tua le prisonnier de cinq coups de feu.
De nombreux prisonniers et civils allemands virent les gardes américains brûler la nourriture apportée par des femmes. Récemment, un ancien prisonnier a décrit cela : “D’abord, les femmes de la ville la plus proche apportèrent de la nourriture dans le camp. Les soldats américains confisquèrent tout cela aux femmes, jetèrent tout en tas, versèrent de l’essence dessus et le brûlèrent.” Eisenhower lui-même ordonna que la nourriture soit détruite, selon l’écrivain Karl Vogel, qui était le commandant du camp allemand, désigné par les Américains dans le camp N° 8 à Garmisch-Partenkirchen. Bien que les prisonniers recevaient seulement 800 calories par jour, les Américains détruisaient de la nourriture devant la porte du camp. »
James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies : the Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation, 1944-1950 [Crimes et pitié : le sort des civils allemands sous l’occupation alliée, 1944-1950] p. 41-45, 94-95.

« Le 20 avril était un jour de tempête. La pluie et la neige se mêlaient au vent du nord glacial qui parcourait la vallée du Rhin jusqu’au camp, situé dans la plaine. Derrière les barbelés un spectacle terrifiant nous attendait : étroitement serrés les uns contre les autres pour se réchauffer, près de 100 000 détenus hagards, apathiques, sales, émaciés, au regard vide, vêtus d’uniformes gris, se tenaient debout, enfoncés dans la boue jusqu’aux chevilles. On distinguait ici et là des taches d’un blanc sale qui se révélaient, à deuxième vue, être des hommes à la tête ou aux bras couverts de bandages, ou tout simplement en bras de chemise. Le commandant allemand de division nous apprit que les prisonniers n’avaient pas mangé depuis plus de deux jours, et que l’approvisionnement en eau représentait un problème majeur alors qu’à moins de 200 mètres le Rhin coulait à plein flot. »
« Compte-rendu d’une visite d’un camp de détention de prisonniers de guerre allemands aux mains de l’armée américaine », par le colonel James B. Mason et le colonel Charles H. Beasley, du Service de Santé militaire des États-Unis, publié en 1950

« En avril 1945, des centaines de milliers de soldats allemands, de malades capturés à l’hôpital, d’estropiés, d’auxiliaires féminines et de civils furent faits prisonniers... A Rheinberg un détenu était âgé de 80 ans, un autre, de 9 ans... Ayant pour seuls compagnons une soif atroce et une faim lancinante, les captifs mouraient de dysenterie. Sans relâche, un ciel peu clément déversait sur eux, au long des semaines, des torrents de pluie... les estropiés glissaient dans la boue comme des amphibiens, trempés et gelés jusqu’à l’os. Sans le moindre abri, jour après jour, nuit après nuit, ils gisaient sur le sable de Rheinberg, livrés au désespoir, ou s’endormaient, épuisés, au fond de leurs trous dont les parois s’effondraient, avant de sombrer dans l’éternité ».
Heinz Janssen, Kriegsgefangenen in Rheinberg, 1988

« Nous ne pouvions même pas nous allonger entièrement. Toute la nuit nous restions assis, tassés les uns contre les autres. Mais rien n’était pire que le manque d’eau. Pendant trois jours et demi on ne nous a pas donné d’eau du tout. Nous buvions notre propre urine. Le goût en était horrible, mais que pouvions-nous faire d’autre ? Certains d’entre nous baissaient leur tête jusqu’au sol et le léchaient, pour essayer d’en tirer un peu d’humidité. Alors que j’étais déjà tellement faible, que je n’arrivais plus à me dresser que sur mes genoux, on nous a enfin distribué un peu d’eau à boire. Je pense que je serais mort sans cette eau. Et le Rhin se trouvait juste de l’autre côté des barbelés. A travers le grillage, les gardiens nous vendaient de l’eau et des cigarettes. Une cigarette coûtait 900 marks. J’ai vu mourir des milliers de mes compagnons. Ils emportaient les corps dans des camions ».
George Weiss, témoignage recueilli par James Bacque, 1988

« On nous maintenait dans des enclos de fil de fer barbelé, en plein air et pratiquement sans nourriture. Les latrines n’étaient constituées que de planches jetées par-dessus les fosses, près des barbelés. Pour dormir, nous n’avions pas d’autre choix que de creuser un trou dans le sol avec nos mains, puis de nous serrer les uns contre les autres, tout au fond. Nous n’avions pratiquement pas d’espace vital. A cause de la maladie, les hommes devaient déféquer sur le sol. Très vite, beaucoup d’entre nous se sont sentis bien trop faibles pour retirer leur pantalon avant qu’il ne soit trop tard. Nos vêtements étaient infectés, ainsi que la boue dans laquelle il nous fallait marcher, nous asseoir et nous coucher. Au départ, il n’y avait pas d’eau du tout, à part la pluie ; au bout de deux semaines il nous a été possible d’en obtenir un peu à partir d’un robinet. La plupart d’entre nous n’avaient aucun récipient pour la recueillir, et nous pouvions seulement en avaler quelques gorgées après des heures de queue, et quelquefois une nuit d’attente. Il nous fallait marcher entre les trous, sur les monticules de terre molle dus aux excavations creusées par les prisonniers pour s’abriter. Il nous était facile de tomber au fond des trous, mais beaucoup moins facile d’en sortir.
Ce printemps-là, il a plu presque sans arrêt sur cette partie de la vallée du Rhin. Plus de la moitié du temps nous avons eu de la pluie. Plus de la moitié du temps nous n’avons rien eu du tout à manger. Pour le reste, on nous donnait une petite ration K. Je voyais d’après la liste imprimée sur l’emballage qu’on ne nous donnait qu’un dixième du contenu de ces rations fabriquées en Amérique. En définitive, nous recevions peut-être 5 % d’une ration normale de l’armée américaine. Je me suis plaint auprès du commandant du camp, un Américain, en lui disant qu’il violait la convention de Genève, mais il m’a simplement répondu : “Oublie la convention, tu n’as aucun droit.” Au bout de quelques jours, des hommes en bonne santé à leur arrivée dans le camp étaient déjà morts. J’ai vu nos compagnons traîner de nombreux cadavres jusqu’aux portes du camp, où on les jetait les uns sur les autres, à même la remorque d’un camion qui les emportait ».
Charles von Luttichau, témoignage recueilli par James Bacque, 1988

« Comme on était environ une trentaine, on croyait que le voyage durerait donc une journée, mais on a voyagé trois jours entiers, sans sortir, complètement enfermés. On regardait à travers de petites fissures pour savoir où on se trouvait... Après trois jours, on est arrivés à Rennes. Il y avait plus de 100 000 prisonniers dans le camp, à peu près le même nombre que dans la ville. Dans les baraques il y avait des lits, les premiers qu’on voyait depuis de nombreuses semaines. Ils étaient en bois, superposés sur trois niveaux, avec rien d’autre, pas de paille ou quoi que ce soit d’autre. On dormait sur les planches. C’était la première fois qu’on avait un toit au-dessus de la tête depuis notre capture. On avait passé trois semaines à Kreuznach, à même la terre, sans permission de faire du feu ou de creuser un trou, et notre seule occupation de la journée consistait à faire la queue pour avoir un peu d’eau. Elle était apportée par des fermiers et mise dans des tonneaux, mais elle était parfois épuisée avant même d’être versée dans ces tonneaux parce que les gens faisaient des trous dans les tuyaux et se dépêchaient de la boire. On manquait vraiment de nourriture. Quand les petits pois arrivaient, ils étaient divisés entre nous, et une fois le partage fait, il en restait quelques-uns. Tout le monde comptait et si on en avait six chacun, eh bien on attendait pour en avoir six et demi.
On est restés à Rennes pendant huit mois. (...) Quand les Américains ont quitté le camp ils ont eu un comportement dégueulasse envers les Français, qui se sont vengés sur nous. (...) J’avais trouvé un morceau de tissu dans une des baraques et je pouvais écrire dessus. J’ai découvert que je comprenais tout ce que j’écrivais mais, dès que je l’effaçais, cela s’effaçait aussi de ma mémoire. Ne pas se souvenir des choses, c’était le premier signe d’épuisement. C’était affreux, j’effaçais, et je n’étais plus capable de me rappeler ce que je venais d’écrire et de comprendre. Je n’étais pas déprimé, c’était juste la malnutrition. (...) Plus tard, quand la faiblesse s’est installée vraiment et que le plus petit mouvement nous faisait perdre conscience, on calculait combien de temps on restait évanouis. La malnutrition devenait tellement grave que le geste le plus infime, exécuté trop rapidement, nous faisait tomber dans les pommes. (...) La nourriture était tellement rare que les gens étaient en général malades, et quand vous étiez malade, on vous emmenait à l’hôpital. Quand les gens étaient emmenés à l’hôpital, on ne les voyait jamais revenir. Sur les 100 000 prisonniers détenus à Rennes, il y en a eu certainement une partie qui sont morts, et même une bonne partie, mais je n’ai jamais trouvé le moindre cimetière.
On n’a jamais vu la Croix-Rouge. Personne n’est jamais venu inspecter le camp pendant deux ans. Leur première visite a eu lieu en 1947, pour nous apporter des couvertures. On mangeait l’herbe qui poussait entre les baraques. Les Français n’étaient pas les seuls responsables de ce qui se passait dans les camps en France, parce qu’ils avaient reçu un grand nombre d’Allemands déjà considérablement handicapés par de mauvais traitements subis en Allemagne [dans les camps américains]. »
Heinz T., témoignage recueilli par James Bacque

« Quel dommage de ne pas avoir pu en tuer davantage. »
Lettre de D. Eisenhower à G.C. Marshall, mai 1943, après la reddition des forces de l’Afrika Korps [ce passage fut plus tard supprimé des éditions officielles de sa Correspondance].

« C’est exactement comme sur les photographies de Buchenwald et Dachau. »
Rapport du capitaine Julien, 3ème régiment de tirailleurs algériens, juillet 1945

« [J’étais] très étonné de voir que nos prisonniers étaient presque aussi faibles et émaciés que ceux que j’avais vus dans les camps de concentration nazis. Le jeune commandant nous dit calmement qu’il privait délibérément les prisonniers de nourriture, et déclara : « Ces nazis ont enfin la monnaie de leur pièce ». Il était tellement convaincu de se comporter correctement que nous ne soulevâmes en sa présence aucune polémique ».
Robert Murphy [conseiller politique civil du général Eisenhower], après une visite d’un camp de prisonniers pendant l’été 1945

« La situation des prisonniers de guerre allemands en Europe est devenue désespérée et est en passe de faire l’objet d’un scandale déclaré. Au cours des semaines passées, plusieurs Français, anciens prisonniers des Allemands, m’ont adressé des protestations relatives au traitement que le gouvernement français fait subir aux prisonniers de guerre allemands (...) J’ai vu Pradervand [Délégué principal du Comité international de la Croix-Rouge en France] qui m’a affirmé que la situation des prisonniers allemands en France est, dans de nombreux cas, pire que celle des camps de concentration allemands. Il m’a montré des photographies de squelettes vivants et des lettres émanant de commandants de camps français, qui ont demandé à être déchargés de cette responsabilité parce qu’ils ne peuvent obtenir aucune aide de la part du gouvernement français et ne supportent pas de voir les prisonniers mourir d’inanition. Pradervand a frappé à toutes les portes au sein du gouvernement français, sans le moindre résultat ».
Lettre de Henry W. Dunning [responsable de la Croix-Rouge américaine] adressée au Département d’État, 5 septembre 1945

« Nous apprenons que dans certains camps [français], une grande partie de la nourriture, en principe à peu près suffisante, affectée aux prisonniers de guerre, est détournée de sa destination, que l’on y voit errer des squelettes vivants presque semblables à ceux des camps allemands de déportés, et que les morts par inanition y sont nombreuses ; nous apprenons qu’il arrive à ces prisonniers d’être frappés sauvagement et systématiquement ; nous apprenons qu’on emploie certains de ces malheureux à des travaux de déminage sans leur fournir d’appareils détecteurs, ce qui fait d’eux des condamnés à mort à plus ou moins bref délai. Il faut que ces pratiques cessent ».
Éditorial du Figaro, 19 septembre 1945

« ... Ces prisonniers [aux mains des Français] sont au nombre de 600 000. 200 000 sont dès maintenant inaptes au travail, soit : a) 50 000 parce qu’ils sont rapatriables au sens des conventions (amputés, aveugles, fous, tuberculeux avancés, etc) b) 150 000 parce qu’ils souffrent de sous-alimentation grave. ... La situation des 200 000 prisonniers de guerre ci-dessus mentionnés est si précaire tant du point de vue alimentaire que sanitaire et vestimentaire, qu’on peut dire, sans être pessimiste, qu’ils ne supporteront pas les rigueurs de l’hiver. (...) Pour remédier à cette situation il est nécessaire qu’une action énergique soit entreprise d’urgence ... ».
Lettre de J. P. Pradervand [Chef des délégations du CICR] au Général De Gaulle, 26 septembre 1945

« Comme on parle aujourd’hui de Dachau, dans dix ans on parlera dans le monde entier de camps comme ... Notre correspondant cite celui de Saint-Paul d’Egiaux. Mais il apparaît que ce jugement est valable pour beaucoup des camps ou des dépôts français de prisonniers de l’Axe ».
Jacques Fauvet, dans Le Monde, 30 septembre-1er octobre 1945

« Les conditions de détention des prisonniers allemands au sein du théâtre européen, exposent [le gouvernement des États-Unis] à des accusations graves de violation de la convention de Genève ».
Lettre de B. Gufler, du Département d’État, 11 janvier 1946

« Le terme d’élimination n’est pas trop fort, si l’on considère que le nombre de ces morts dépassa de loin toutes celles subies par l’armée allemande sur le front de l’ouest, entre juin 1941 et avril 1945 ».
Dr Ernest F. Fisher Jr, colonel en retraite et ancien historien-chef de l’armée des États-Unis, 1988

« L’Histoire ne retient que les phénomènes de masse ... Sans le nombre massif de morts dans les camps, l’Histoire n’en aurait rien retenu. Pour empêcher que leur crime fût divulgué et transformé en événement historique, il suffisait donc aux Américains et aux Français de dissimuler l’ampleur d’un désastre qu’ils étaient les seuls à mesurer. Ce fut accompli ».
James Bacque, Morts pour raisons diverses, 1989

L’attitude du général De Gaulle :
« En tant que chef du gouvernement et chef des armées, il arriva certainement à De Gaulle d’évoquer ce problème avec son chef d’état-major de la Défense nationale, le maréchal Alphonse Juin, lui-même très au courant de la situation délicate qui régnait dans les camps. Conseillé par le maréchal Juin, De Gaulle refusa de recevoir Pradervand [Délégué du CICR], et offrit à la presse mondiale, au début du mois d’octobre, cette remarquable conférence de presse au cours de laquelle il aborda si prudemment le contentieux franco-américain relatif aux transferts de prisonniers ... Attitude au demeurant peu surprenante quand on sait que le général De Gaulle attendait des milliers de tonnes de matériel de guerre et des vivres livrés quotidiennement [par les Américains]. Charles De Gaulle était très préoccupé par les problèmes de politique intérieure, par le besoin d’asseoir son autorité dans une France divisée et soucieuse de la reconquête de son empire colonial. ... Le destin d’un million de prisonniers allemands ne pesait pas bien lourd dans la balance. (...)
Les vivres ne manquaient pas, mais au lieu d’être distribués aux hommes qui avaient faim, ils étaient vendus par des officiers au marché noir, à la stupéfaction et à la consternation d’hommes honnêtes tels que le maire de Bascons, Raoul Laporterie, qui osa risquer sa carrière en critiquant le général De Gaulle, et eut effectivement à en pâtir. (...)
Le général De Gaulle aurait pu aisément éviter de nombreuses morts en cessant d’ajouter de nouveaux prisonniers à ceux qui périssaient déjà d’inanition. Le maréchal Juin aurait pu le persuader d’agir dans ce sens. Le général Buisson [directeur du service des prisonniers de guerre] fut en quelque sorte victime, tout comme les prisonniers, d’une politique futile et vicieuse infligée par les détenteurs du pouvoir, qui n’étaient autres que le général De Gaulle et le maréchal Juin. A qui revient la gloire, revient la honte. »
James Bacque, Morts pour raison diverses, 1989

Chair à canon pour la guerre d’Indochine
« Les Français affamèrent délibérément certains des prisonniers, afin de provoquer leur « engagement volontaire » dans la Légion étrangère. En effet, nombre des légionnaires qui combattirent en Indochine étaient des prisonniers de guerre allemands transférés dans les camps français en 1945 et 1946. »
James Bacque, Morts pour raisons diverses, 1989

« On est restés à Rennes pendant huit mois. Pendant tout ce temps on a compris pourquoi on nous avait fait venir. La France avait besoin de soldats. Ils avaient un gros problème en Indochine et ils voulaient pourvoir leur Légion étrangère. Des agents allemands au service des Français s’étaient infiltrés parmi nous pour recruter des soldats. (...) Les soldats qui s’étaient engagés dans la Légion étrangère ont été mis dans un autre camp à coté où on pouvait les voir ; au bout de deux semaines, comme ils étaient mieux nourris, ils avaient l’air plus résistants, alors qu’on devenait de plus en plus faibles. On pouvait les voir commencer à jouer au football et chanter, tout à côté de nous ».
Heinz T., témoignage recueilli par James Bacque






THE BARNES REVIEW 2001
THE ALLIES’ AWFUL TREATMENT
OF POST-WWII PRISONERS

BY VIVIAN BIRD

“British and Allied troops appearing as defendants in war crimes trials with brutal Serbs and former Red Army thugs is [a phenomenon that is] well overdue,” says 20th century analyst Michael Walsh, author of “The Legend of Dunkirk” (p. 41). His research exposes Allied genocide, enslavement and institutionalized ill treatment of Axis POWs both during and after World War II. And the U.S. government is as culpable as the other Allied governments in this matter. The abuse of Axis POWs was contrary to the Geneva and other conventions to which Britain and its allies were signatories. As late as 1948, three years after the war’s end, the British government’s treatment of its foreign prisoners was subject to International Red Cross (IRC) scrutiny and international condemnation. The IRC threatened to bring the British government before international tribunals for abuse and illegal enslavement. Typically, British-administered prisoner-of-war camps, even long after the war had ended and wartime disruptions had ceased, were worse than Belsen had ever been. Tragically, even civilians were illegally held, deported and murdered, in the tens of thousands. The killers have, so far, evaded justice.

The respected Associated Press photographer Henry Griffin, who had taken pictures of corpses in Buchenwald and Dachau, stated, when visiting Allied POW camps: “The only difference I can see between these men and those corpses is that here they are still breathing.”1

According to revelations by members of the House of Commons, about 130,000 former German officers and men were held during the winter of 1945-46 in British camps in Belgium under conditions which British officers have described as “not much better than Belsen.”2

Adding to international outrage, Cyril Connolly, one of England’s most acclaimed writers, reported:

British guards imprisoned German troops and tortured them. [T]hey were so possessed by propaganda about German “Huns” that they obviously enjoyed demonstrating their atrocities to visiting journalists.

A British reporter named Moorehead who was present at these “torture fests” observed that a young British medical officer and a captain of engineers managed the Bergen-Belsen camp:

The captain was in the best of moods. When we approached the cells of jailed guards, the sergeant lost his temper. The captain explained: “This morning we had an interrogation. I’m afraid the prisoners don’t look exactly nice.”

The cells were opened for the visiting journalists.

The German prisoners lay there, crumpled, moaning, covered with gore. The man next to me made vain attempts to get to his feet and finally managed to stand up. He stood there trembling, and tried to stretch out his arms as if fending off blows. “Up!” yelled the sergeant. “Come off the wall.”

“They pushed themselves off from the wall and stood there, swaying. In another cell the medical officer had just finished an interrogation. “Up!” yelled the officer. “Get up!” The man lay in his blood on the floor. He propped two arms on a chair and tried to pull himself up. A second demand and he succeeded in getting to his feet. He stretched his arms toward us. “Why don’t you kill me off?” he moaned.

Former British army veteran A.W. Perkins of Holland-on-Sea described conditions in the Sennelager British concentration camp, which, shockingly, held, not captured troops, but civilians. He recounts: “During the latter half of 1945, I was with British troops guarding suspected Nazi civilians living on starvation rations in a camp called Sennelager. They were frequently beaten and grew as thin as concentration camp victims [apparently he did not realize that this is exactly what they were—Ed.], scooping handfuls of swill from our waste bins.”

This ex-guard described how other guards amused themselves by baiting the desperate prisoners. “They could be shot on sight if they ventured close to the perimeter fence. It was a common trick to throw a cigarette just inside the fence and shoot any prisoner who tried to reach it.”4

“When press representatives ask to examine the prison camps, the British loudly refuse, with the excuse that the Geneva Convention bars such visits to POW camps,” complained press correspondent Arthur Veysey from London on May 28, 1946.

Reported the Chicago Tribune Press Service on May 19, 1946, one year after the war’s end: “[Typically the] prisoners lived through the winter in tents and slept on the bare ground under one blanket each. They say they are underfed and beaten and kicked by guards. Many have no underclothes or boots.”

An Associated Press dispatch (London, August 27, 1946) stated, more than 16 months after the war ended: “In the summer of 1946, an increasing number of prisoners-of-war were escaping from British slave camps, often with British civilian aid. Accounts of the chases by military police are reminiscent of pre-Civil War pursuits [of] fleeing Negro fugitives.”

Tens of thousands of Central European people, displaced by the war, who fell into British hands, were treated even worse in British-controlled Austria and Yugoslavia. There, Britain and the Soviet Union’s NKVD ran the concentration camps jointly. The latter, forerunners to the KGB, were invited to assist the British in the capture and corralling, deportation and slaughter of their captives.

One British officer described how “The prisoners [civilians] were treated coarsely but not brutally. They were pushed and shoved, but there was no resistance, no fighting or trying to get back or get away. They were all completely docile, resigned totheir fate. The soldiers collected them all quickly into groups and marched them away to be machine-gunned in groups.”

The British officer added:

Some of them didn’t get very far, I’m afraid. At the back of the station there was a wood, a copse, and they seemed to be marched behind this copse. Shortly afterward, there were quite a number of sustained bursts of machine-gun fire. I can’t say for certain what happened, because I couldn’t see the shooting. But I am pretty sure a lot of them were shot there and then, not on the siding itself but just around the corner of the wood.

This is typical of many accounts when units of the British army, working with Red Army NKVD officers, hunted down and butchered tens of thousands of Cossackcivilian refugees, including children, in Austria, in summer 1945, after the war hadended.

Tens of thousands of people, of many nationalities, were hunted down and rounded up like cattle to be taken to the Red Army’s killing fields. One account said:

The whole train was bespattered with blood. They were open-plan carriages, and I remember the bloodstains where bodies had been dragged right down the corridor between the seats and down three [or] four steps.

Another such patrol, consisting of two Red Army officers and four British soldiers, set off into the hills on horseback on June 8. They captured one such group on the lower slopes. . . . The Cossacks ran off, leaving just a few, mainly women and children who were too weak to move. One soldier spotted a Cossack in the distance, aimed his rifle at him, fired and saw him drop. . . . As he was not seen to rise again, it was assumed he had been killed.

Capt. Duncan McMillan remembers “being guided to a small railway station, where there was a barbed-wire enclosure.” He saw the Cossacks being unloaded from the trucks and described how they were stripped of their possessions, even food, before being marched away. “Many British soldiers who were there have testified that they heard the rattle of machine-guns nearby just moments after the prisoners were removed.” James Davidson said: “We thought that machine-gunning must be the finish of them. We thought they were just taken back there and slaughtered.”

These awful accounts were described in Nicholas Bethell’s book The Last Secret, published by Futura (London) in 1974. The English legal apparatus suppressed further accounts.

In August 1946, 15 months after the end of World War II, according to the International Red Cross, “Britain had 460,000 German prisoners slaving for her.” This was in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention (enslavement of POWs is a violation of the Geneva Convention, Article 75), which Britain was a signatory to. Arthur Veysey of the Chicago Tribune Press Service on May 28, 1946 reported: “When they (German POWs) learned upon arrival in British and French ports they were to be worked indefinitely as slaves, they became sullen.” Arthur Veysey, appalled by the British abuse of human rights and the illegality of its slave-ownership policies and defiance of the Geneva Convention said:

The British government nets over $250,000,000 annually from its slaves. The government, which frankly calls itself the ‘owner’ of the prisoners, hires the men out to any employer needing men, charging the going rate for such work, usually $15 to $20 a week. It pays the slaves from 10 to 20 cents a day. The prisoners are never paid in cash, but are given credits either in the form of vouchers or credit.

When American attempts were made to prevent Stalin from abducting 5 million Germans, many of them civilians including children, as slave laborers after Germany’s defeat, the Soviets made their point. They produced a proclamation signed by Gen. Dwight Eisenhower a year earlier, which gave the Soviets complete freedom to do whatever they wished with captured Germans. This included deportation, enslavement; to loot and destroy without restraint, even using German transport to do so. They reminded the U.S. government that they had an equal right to do as the Americans were doing and were exercising the same right.

Eyewitness accounts describe events when Berlin and Breslau surrendered. “The long gray-green columns of prisoners were marched east downcast and fearful toward huge depots near Leningrad, Moscow, Minsk, Stalingrad, Kiev, Kharkov and Sevastopol. All fit men had to march 22 miles a day. Those physically handicapped went in handcarts or carts pulled by spare beasts.” This was reported in The Congressional Record on March 29, 1946.

By August 1946 France, according to the International Red Cross, had enslaved nearly three-quarters of a million former German servicemen. Of these 475,000 had been captured by the Americans, who, “in a deal,” had transferred them to French control for the expressed purpose of forced labor. Interestingly (in a macabre way), the French returned 2,474 German POWs, complaining that they were weaklings.5

Those returned must indeed have been in a bad way for the 472,526 remaininged slaves had already been described by correspondents as; “a beggar army of pale, thin men clad in vermin-infested tatters.” All were pronounced unfit for work, three-quarters of them due to deliberate starvation. Of this unfortunate “army” of slaves, 19 percent were so badly treated they needed to be hospitalized.6

In the notorious camp in the Sarthe District for 20,000 prisoners, inmates received just 900 calories a day; thus 12 died every day in the hospital. Four to five thousand were unable to work anymore.

Recently trains with new prisoners arrived at the camp; several prisoners had died during the trip, several others had tried to stay alive by eating coal that had been lying in the freight train by which they came.7

On December 5, 1946, the U.S. government requested the repatriation (by October 1, 1947) to Germany of the 674,000 German POWs it had handed over to France, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg.

France agreed, in principle, but refused to abide by the release date stipulated. The French pointed out, correctly, that a December 1, 1945 memorandum clearly stated that German prisoners handed over to the French by the U.S. government “were chattels to be used indefinitely as forced labor.”8

The German armed forces invariably obeyed the Rules of War conventions to the letter. Speaking for himself and other Allied military commanders, Maj. Gen. Robert W. Grow, U.S. Army Commander, 6th Armored Division in Europe, conceded there were no knon German atrocities against the Allies:

My service during World War II was in command of an armored division throughout the European campaign, from Normandy to Saxony. My division lost quite a number of officers and men captured between July 1944 and April 1945. In no instance did I hear of personnel from our division receiving treatment other than proper under the “Rules of Land Warfare.” As far as the 6th Armored Division was concerned in its 280 days of front-line contact, there was no “atrocity problem.” Frankly, I was aghast, as were many of my contemporaries, when we learned of the proposed “war crimes” trials and the fact that military commanders were among the accused. I know of no general officer who approved of them.9

Despite the German observance of convention the American forces response was often as summary and as brutal as those practiced by their Soviet allies. Only in cases where large numbers of captured soldiers had been taken were they to be enslaved. If captured in smaller groups the U.S. Army policy was simply to slaughter their captured prisoners where they stood.

One such case was the cold-blooded slaying of an estimated 700 troops of the 8th SS Mountain Division. These troops who had fought with honorable distinction had earlier captured a U.S. field hospital. Although the German troops had conducted themselves properly, they were, when subsequently captured by the U.S. Army, routinely separated and gunned down in groups by squads of American troops.

A similar fate befell infantrymen of the SS Westphalia Brigade, who were captured by the U.S. 3rd Armored Division. Most of the German captives were shot in the back of the head. The jubilant Americans told the locals to leave their bodies in the streets as a warning to others of U.S. revenge. Their corpses lay in the streets for five days before the occupying forces relented and allowed the corpses to be buried. After the war the German authorities attempted, without success, to prosecute the GIs responsible.10 Ironically, in the light of postwar research, it has been revealed that the only atrocities committed at Dachau were those carried out by the victorious Allies. Equally ironically this camp was an Allied concentration camp for a longer period of time (11 years) than it was a German administered camp. There, 300 SS camp guards were quickly “neutralized,” on the orders of Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower. The term “neutralized,” of course, is a politically correct way of saying POWs were rounded up and machine-gunned in groups. Accounts of the mass murder of POWs at Dachau have been described in at least two books; The Day of the Americans by Nerin Gun, Fleet Publishing Company, New York, and, Deliverance Day—The Last Hours at Dachau by Michael Selzer, Lippincot, Philadelphia.

These books describe how German prisoners were collected in groups, placed against a wall and methodically machine-gunned by American soldiers while some were still standing, hands raised in surrender. American soldiers casually climbed over the twitching bodies, killing the wounded. While this was happening, American photographers were taking pictures of the massacres, which have since been published.

At Dachau, which was in the American zone of Germany, a shock force of American and Polish guards attempted to entrain a group of Russian prisoners from Vlasov’s army, who had refused to be repatriated under the new American ruling.

“All of these men refused to entrain,” Robert Murphy wrote in his report of the incident. “They begged to be shot. They resisted entrainment by taking off their clothes and refusing to leave their quarters. . . . Tear gas forced them out of the building into the snow, where those who had cut and stabbed themselves fell exhausted and bleeding in the snow. Nine men hanged themselves and one had stabbed himself to death and one other who had stabbed himself subsequently died, while 20 others are still in hospital from self-inflicted wounds. The entrainment was finally effected of 368 men.11

The last operation of this kind in Germany took place at Plattling near Regensburg, where 1,500 men of Vlasov’s army had been interned by the Americans. In the early hours of February 24, 1946 they were driven out of their huts, wearing only their nightclothes, and handed over to the Russians [Soviets—Ed.] in the forest near the Bavarian-Czech border. Before the train set off on its return journey, the American guards were horrified to see the bodies of Vlasov’s men who had already committed suicide hanging in rows from trees. And when they returned to Plattling even the German SS prisoners in the nearby POW camp jeered at them for what they had done.

According to The Toronto Daily Star, March 9, 1968, “Former members of an illegal Israeli force which was given absolute freedom to slaughter Germans conceded that, “More than 1,000 Nazi SS officers died as a result of eating arsenic-impregnated bread introduced April 13, 1946, in an American-run POW camp near Nuremberg.”

After the U.S. victory at the Battle for Remagen Bridge, Germans in the Rhineland surrendered en masse. Between April and July 1945, some 260,000 German POWs were held under American guard in the boggy fields between Remagen and Sinzig. They were kept in the open air, and their daily ration was one potato, a biscuit, a spoonful of vegetables and some water. Wracked by disease, at least 1,200 died, according to German records.”12

In the United States, where 140,000 German POWs were shipped, the Catholic Bishops Conference described how:

Multitudes of civilians and prisoners of war have been deported and degraded into forced labor unworthy of human beings. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, are put like slaves to forced labor, although the only thing with which they can be reproached is the fact that they were soldiers. Many of these poor fellows are without news from home and have not been allowed to send a sign of life to their dear ones.


Total Figures for German
Slaves After World War II
Nation.....................Number of
Holding.......................German
Slaves...................Slaves Held
United States............140,000
Italy.............................30,000
Britain.......................460,000
Soviet Union...4-5 million, est.
France..................... 680,000
Yugoslavia.................80,000
Belgium..................... 48,000
Czechoslovakia..........45,000
Luxembourg................4,000
Holland.........................1,300
Source: International Red Cross


An outraged International Red Cross organization opined:

United States, Britain and France, nearly a year after peace are violating International Red Cross agreements they solemnly signed in 1929. Although thousands of former German soldiers are being used in the hazardous work of clearing minefields, sweeping sea mines and razing shattered buildings, the Geneva Convention expressly forbids employing prisoners in any dangerous labor or ni the transport of any material used in warfare

Henry Wales, in Geneva, Switzerland, on April 13, 1946, added:

The bartering of captured enemy soldiers by the victors throws the world back to the dark ages when feudal barons raided adjoining duchies to replenish their human livestock. It is an iniquitous system and an evil precedent, because it is wide open for abuse, with difficulty in establishing responsibility. It is manifestly as unjust to sell them for political reasons as the [sale of] African Negroes a century ago.

By contrast, the German armed forces behaved impeccably toward their POWs. “The most amazing thing about the atroci ties in this war [on the German side] is that there have been so few of them. I have come up against few instances where the Germans have not treated prisoners according to the rules, and respected the Red Cross,” reported The Progressive, a respected newspaper, on February 4, 1945.

Allan Wood, London correspondent for The London Express, agreed: “The Germans even in their greatest moments of despair obeyed the Convention in most respects. True it is that there were front-line atrocities—passions run high up there—but they were incidents, not practices, and misadministration of their American prison camps was very uncommon.” Lt. Newton L. Marguiles echoed his words: “It is true the Reich exacted forced labor from foreign workers, but it is also true that they were, for the most part, paid and fed well.”

“I think some of the persons found themselves better off than at any time in their lives before,” said Dr. James K. Pollack, Allied Military Government (AMG).

Said Max H. Forester, chief of AMG’s Coal and Mining Division in July 1946: “What did the Germans do to get efficient production from forced labor that we were not able to do with Germans working down the mines? They fed their help, and fed them well.”

Asked what were the chances of the evil perpetrators of such crimes being brought to justice, Walsh said the only thing that stood between the Allied sadists and the hangman’s rope was the will to bring them to trial. Unfortunately, war crimes justice is selective and so far applicable only to the defeated foe.

Said Walsh: “What is needed is to raise public awareness and a lead be given by those in public life whose voice is less likely to be censored.” He added that the interests of justice must come before national pride and political expediency. “How else,” he added, “can human civilization progress than through the administration of justice that is blind to race, political dogma and national interests?”

FOOTNOTES
1-Congressional Record, December 11, 1945,A-5816.
2-Gruesome Harvest, R.F. Keeling, Institute of American Economics, Chicago, 1947.
3-Cyril Connolly, The Golden Horizon, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London.
4-Daily Mail, London, April 22, 1995.
5-John Thompson, Chicago Tribune Press Service, Geneva, August 24, 1946.
6-Gruesome Harvest, R.F. Keeling, Institute of American Economics, Chicago, 1947.
7-Louis Clair, The Progressive, January 14, 1946.
8-Keeling, op. cit.
9-Doenitz at Nuremberg: A Re-Appraisal, H.K. Thompson and Henry Strutz, Amber Publishing Corp., N.Y., 1976.
10-Daily Mail, London, May 1, 1995.
11-Douglas Botting, In the Ruins of the Reich, George Allen & Unwin, London.
12-Roger Boyes, The (London) Times, March 7, 1995.

Vivian Bird is a British historian, author and journalist who has written extensively about hidden aspects of the history. He also edited Auschwitz: The Final Count from TBR. He currently resides in Devonshire.





Crimes et pitié, le sort des civils allemands sous l'occupation alliée, 1944-1950

Voici les libérateurs !

La destruction des Allemands ethniques et des prisonniers de guerre allemands en Yougoslavie, 1945-1953





39-45 : les dossiers oubliés : retour sur les crimes soviétiques et américains


VARSOVIE via (NOVOpress)

Boguslaw Woloszanski, journaliste polonais, continue dans son nouvel ouvrage, 39-45 : les dossiers oubliés, aux Editions Jourdan, d’explorer les faces méconnues de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, sur la base notamment de la récente ouverture des archives de l’ex-Union Soviétique.


Le premier chapitre du livre est d’ailleurs consacré aux manœuvres de l’un des plus grands criminels de l’histoire du XXème siècle : Joseph Staline. Où comment l’ami de Lénine liquida en 1937 le chef de son armée, Mikhaïl Nikolaïevitch Toukhatchevski, danger pour son pouvoir absolu, avec l’aide… du régime hitlérien, trop heureux de priver l’Armée Rouge de son officier le plus talentueux.

http://www.disons.fr/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/tuhachev-251x300.jpg



Boguslaw Woloszanski rappelle aussi les coups tordus perpétrés par les démocraties occidentales durant ce conflit qui saigna à blanc le continent européen. L’auteur souligne pourquoi des centaines de Canadiens furent sacrifiés à Dieppe le 19 août 1942 alors que seulement 50 Américains débarquèrent sur le sol normand ce jour là.


http://www.herodote.net/Images/Dieppe1942.jpg



Plage de Puys près de Dieppe

Les Etats-Unis mirent le paquet en revanche pour s’attaquer à des cibles non militaires. Boguslaw Woloszanski revient sur les raids aériens américains sur Tokyo en 1945. Celui du 9 au 10 mars fut le plus meurtrier des bombardements de la Seconde Guerre mondiale : 100 000 victimes, pour la plupart brûlées vives. Puis les bombardements d’Hambourg en juillet 1943 ou le génocide satanique de Dresde en février 1945.

http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/5/52/524/524021/dresden_1200488132.jpg

Au cours des sept derniers mois de cette campagne, ce type d’actions a provoqué la destruction de 67 grandes villes japonaises, causant plus de 500 000 morts et quelque 5 millions de sans abri. Pourtant, aucun général américain ne fut traduit devant un tribunal international pour ces crimes de guerre.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/heroesvillains/g5/images/g5cs1s2a.jpg







Mardi 30 novembre 2010 2 30 /11 /2010 12:57

Lors de leur avancée, les soldats de l'Armée rouge commirent de nombreuses atrocités dont des viols, des meurtres et des pillages. La propagande soviétique (Ilya Ehrenbourg) encourageait une attitude violente et vengeresse à l'encontre des allemands, ce qui peut expliquer l'attitude agressive des soldats soviétiques envers les civils allemands. Les officiers comme Lev Kopelev qui s'opposèrent à ces exactions furent arrêtés pour manque de combativité et condamnés au goulag.




























http://www.deborah33epee.com/2012/03/pourim-temps-de-jugements.html
POURIM : - TEMPS DE JUGEMENTS, FINS BRUTALES D'ENNEMIS D'ISRAEL3 mars 2012

Procés de Nuremberg

- ACCOMPLISSEMENTS DE JUGEMENTS DEMANDÉS PAR ESTHER :


I-a) Souccot (Fête des Tabernacles) 1946 : 16 octobre 1946 -Pendaison de dix dignitaires nazis :
Suite au procès de Nuremberg le 16 oct 1946 /21 Tichri 5707, 10 nazis furent pendus. Ceci accomplissait une demande faite du temps de la Reine Esther (chap 9: 7-9). En effet, elle avait demandé au roi de Perse Assuérus/Xerxès, de pendre une seconde fois les 10 fils d’Haman. Pourtant ils avaient déjà été pendus le jour d’avant 13 Adar. Cette seconde demande était faite un 14 Adar, jour de Pourim (généralement en mars) : Le roi dit à la reine Esther : «Les Juifs ont tués et faits périr dans Suze, la capitale, cinq cents hommes et les dix fils d’Haman.» Elle lui demande : «S’il plait au roi, qu’il soit donné aux Juifs de Suse d’agir encore demain selon le décret d’aujourd’hui, et que l’on pende au bois les dix fils d’Haman. » (Esther 9:12).

REMARQUES :
– Chaque fois que l'on parle du roi, s'il est précisé "le roi Assuérus" il s'agit bien de lui, mais lorsque le mot "Roi" seul est écrit, cela fait référence à Dieu. Or la demande d'Esther est faite au Roi… sans le nom d'Assuérus. Cette demande est par conséquent adressée à Dieu lui-même. «…Qu'il soit donné aux Juifs(…) encore demain (mahar en hébreux) »
Les sages juifs enseignent qu'il faut comprendre dans le mot mahar, non pas le lendemain, mais un futur éloigné. Voir aussi "le livre caché" :
Nous savons qu'Haman est un descendant d’Amalek, l’ennemi juré d’Israël, comme il est écrit , "Haman fils d’Hamedata, descendant d’Agag le roi d’Amalek» L'enseignement des rabbins précise que «la Germania descend d’Amalek… »

I-b) Nuremberg et Pourim 1946

Plus de 2400 ans après au procès de Nuremberg, c’est précisément le septième jour de Souccot 5707, le 16 Octobre 1946, dans la nuit d’Hoshaana Raba, que furent pendus les dix «dignitaires» nazis à l’issue du procès de Nuremberg ! Sur 24 accusés, 12 sont condamnés à mort, mais seulement 10 seront exécutés… et par pendaison ! L’un parvint à s’échapper (Martin Bormann), un autre (Hermann Göring) se suicida la veille de son exécution avec une capsule de cyanure. Or ce 16 octobre /21 Tichri, l’un des 10 nazis, Streicher, avait crié avant sa pendaison : «fête de Pourim 1946 ! » Ainsi il a rappelé le livre d’Esther et l’exécution d’Haman et de ses fils.
Ce 16 Octobre 1946 (21 Tichri 5707) était le 7ème jour de la fête des Tabernacles, (Souccot). Le 7eme jour de Souccot est considéré comme le jour exécutoire du jugement final, figurant le «Jugement dernier».
En 1946, le Pourim cité par Streicher tombait théoriquement le 17 Mars /14 Adar II 5706. *(1)

II)- Libye

1) Pourim 2011 – Attaque de la Libye (19-20/03/2011)
La décision d’intervenir en Libye ( résolution 1973) fût prise à l’O.N.U le jeudi 17 mars 2011 /11 Adar II (1) qui était le jour de la célébration du «Jeune d’Esther»,. L’attaque a commencé 3 jours après, au début de la nuit du 19 au 20 mars 2011 /14 Adar II (1) au moment de la fête "Pourim"

2) Souccot 2011 – Mort de Kadhafi le 20 Octobre 2011
( 8eme jour de la fête de Souccot )
- La mort de Kadhafi le 20 octobre 2011 /(22 Tichri 5772 ) Après le «jour exécutoire des jugements» du 21 Tichri, vient le «grand jour de fête» qui marque un nouveau commencement couronnant la fête des Tabernacles, le 22 Tichri. C’est le jour de la fin de Kadhafi, rien d’ennemi ou d’ancien ne peut participer à ce jour-là

III)- Irak

1) Pourim 1991 -28/02/91 La Première guerre contre l’Irak nommée «Tempête du désert» débuta le 17 janvier 1991,et se termina au bout de 42 jours, le 28 février 1991 /14 Adar 5751 (Pourim 1991 !), aux portes de Bagdad. Douze ans s’écoulèrent dans le calendrier hébraïque, jusqu’à… Pourim 2003 (18 mars /14 Adar(II) 5763)


2) Pourim 19-20 Mars 2003 -2eme Attaque de l’Irak
Dans la même série de Jugements, en 2003, le «Jeûne d’Esther» tombait le lundi 17 mars 2003 /13 Adar(II) 5763 Ce même jour, un ultimatum de 48h fût signifié à l’Irak de Saddam Hussein !
L’attaque débuta effectivement le 3ème jour après le «Jeûne», la nuit du 19 au 20 mars 2003 /16 Adar(II) 5763 à la fin de la fête de Pourim. Elle dura 8 ans et 9 mois jusqu’au retrait des derniers combattants américains le 18 décembre 2011
Saddam Hussein avait été capturé , près de 9 mois après les premiers bombardements, la nuit du 13 au 14 déc 2003 Il a été pendu après 3 ans d’un long procès, le 30 déc 2006 /9 Tevet 5767. C’était la veille d’un «Jeûne du 10ème mois» (mois de Tevet). Ce Jeûne commémore un malheur : le début du siège de Jérusalem par Nébucadnetsar le 28 décembre -589 /10 Tevet 3172 avant sa prise et la destruction du premier Temple le 29 juillet -586 /9 Av 3174.
.. Or il est notoire que Saddam Hussein se targait d’incarner Nebucadnetsar roi de Babylone (aujourd’hui Hillel en Irak)… inversement dans son cas ce fût lui, son pays et sa capitale qui fûrent assiégés et pris !
*(1) Note: 1946 – 2003 -2011étaient des années de 13 mois lunaires avec 2 mois d’Adar (I et II) pour réajuster les mois lunaires et solaires dans le calendrier hébraïque.

REMARQUES COMPLÉMENTAIRES :

1- Rappel : Le 13 Adar, correspondant à la célébration du jeune d’Esther, est le jour ou Esther a fait sa première demande au roi d’exécuter les fils d’Haman demande accomplie le jour même. La seconde demande eu lieu le lendemain, 14 Adar, jour de Pourim
Dans le calendrier hébraïque, les jours de célébration du jeune d’Esther (13 Adar) correspondent respectivement a l’ultimatum adressé par les U.S.A en 2003 à l’Irak et en 2011 à la résolution de l’O.N.U d’intervenir en Libye

Il ne faut pas oublier que le calendrier hébraïque a été «consacré» par les sacrificateurs et donc «sanctifié» par Dieu : les dates des fêtes ou événements sont sous la souveraineté de Dieu !
Les exemples étudiés montrent clairement que la seconde demande qu’Esther avait faite au «Roi» (Esther 9: 12-14) est toujours exécutoire envers ceux qui veulent détruire les juifs ou plus encore Israël ! La parole «irrévocable» du roi des Perses (ombre de celle du vrai Roi des Rois) est un Jugement divin qui court toujours !

- Deux petits + au passage : Jesus-Christ est ressuscité le 3ème jour en l’An 3790 ou l’An 3793 hébraïques (30 ou 33) .. Esther est sortie du Jeûne, le 3ème jour (fêté le 13 Adar) : tout un symbole ! En fait le Jeûne et Pourim présentent beaucoup d'aspects de la Pâque.
Par ailleurs la seconde demande d’Esther contre les 10 fils d’Haman s'est appliquée le jour de Pourim, 14 Adar, le 5ème jour après le début de son jeûne. Souvenons nous que pour Dieu «un jour est comme mille ans» (Ps 90: 4 et 2 Pie 3: 8)… les jugements prononcés ont été exécutés dans les années commençant par 5 du calendrier hébraïque. Effectivement, des Jugements correspondant à la seconde demande d’Esther sont intervenus, comme nous avons vu : en Oct 1946 /5707 pour les nazis. En Irak : Mars 2003 /5763 et Dec 2006 /5767 (Saddam). En Libye : Mars 2011/5772 et Oct 2011/5772 .

Dès lors on peut se demander quel sera le prochain ? Un des candidats évident est Ahmadinejad (décomposable en «Ahaman» et «Jihad», lui aussi demeurant en Perse comme Haman). Faudra-t-il attendre une année de 13 mois comme dans les cas étudiés ? Les prochaines seront 2014 et 2016…

2- Observons que les 17 mars ressortent avec insistance dans tous les cas soit pour Pourim, soit pour le Jeûne. Il se trouve que le jour de célébration du jeun d’Esther , correspondant à l’éxécution des fils d’Haman le 13 Adar 3287 qui était un 17 mars en 473 av. J.C. **(2)
- La seconde demande d’Esther concernant de nouveau les fils d’Haman et qui tombait le jour de Pourim, le 18 mars – 473, correspondant à l’exécution des chefs nazis s’est accomplie .à Souccot , le samedi 16 octobre 1946 – un 21 Tichri , jour «d’exécution des jugements» ! De la même façon pour Kadhafi , la résolution d’intervenir eut lieu à Pourim 2011 et sa mort eut lieu à Souccot, le 20 octobre 2011, un 22 Tichri. Des jugements différés qui s’accomplissent à la fin de la fête des Tabernacles… "Jour d’exécution des Jugements«, préfiguration du Jugement Final !
**(2) Note : Haman a été pendu entre le 1er -Pessah- et le 3ème mois (probable comme le vrai temps du jeûne d'Esther); Ses fils le 12ème de la même année hébraïque (Esther 3: 12 entre Pessah et le mois de Juin -23 sivan-, Esther 8: 9)Hitler était mort aussi (30 avril 1945) entre la Pâque et le mois de juin 1945 qui est le mois de Sivan, celui de la Pentecôte)… avant ses 10 «fils idéologiques» en octobre 1946.


AUTRES TYPES DE JUGEMENTS

Anouar el Sadate avait attaqué Israël le samedi 6 octobre 1973 /10 Tichri 5734, jour sacré du Kippour (Grand Pardon) tombant de plus un sabbat, jour doublement solennel pour les juifs ! C’est une faute très grave d’attaquer Israël un tel jour chargé de sens… Saddate est mort 8 ans plus tard, le 6 octobre 1981 /8 Tichri 5742, justement lors de la commémoration de cette attaque devenue fête nationale en Egypte ! Cette guerre avait de plus inclus la fête des Tabernacles puisqu’elle s’était terminée le 24 octobre /28 Tichri.
L’un des points communs de ce Jugement avec ceux vus précédemment, outre qu’il s’agissait d’années de 13 mois lunaires, est qu’il s’accomplit en Automne (morts naturelles sans de telles «significations spirituelles», comme Nasser 28 sept 1970, Arafat 11 nov 2004…) et plus spécialement au mois de Tichri [NOTE DU GENTIL: MOIS DE TICHRI, COMME LE PROCÈS DE NUREMBERG ET LA PENDAISON DES CONDAMNÉS].

Jean THIRION












Sur ce blog:

La Judée déclare la guerre à l'Allemagne

Pourim: l'ennemi traditionnel a gagné la 2e guerre mondiale

Autour de l'un des meilleurs historiens de la période de la 2e guerre mondiale